Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited (formerly Thiess Services Pty Ltd) T/A Ventia Utility..

[2017] FWC 1157

[2017] FWC 1157

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited (formerly Thiess Services Pty Ltd) T/A Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited
(B2017/175)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY MELBOURNE, 3 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited.

[1] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the ETU) applied for a protected action ballot order.¹

[2] The ETU sought an order that employees of Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited who are members of the ETU and who would be subject to the proposed enterprise agreement be balloted to see if they supported the taking of protected industrial action.

[3] It was not disputed that:

(1) The ETU is a bargaining representative for employees.²

(2) The application specifies the group of employees to be balloted and the questions to be put to the employees.³

(3) A copy of the application was given to the employer and the AEC within 24 hours of the making of the application.⁴

(4) The nominal expiry date of the agreement has passed.⁵

[4] Mr Matthew Boyd, an ETU Branch Organiser, filed a statutory declaration.

[5] On 28 February 2017 at 12.01 pm, Mr Scott McNamara emailed the Commission seeking the matter be listed for hearing. While there was no dispute that the ETU was genuinely trying to reach an agreement, there was a challenge to the validity of the ballot questions. It was said that the questions should be more specific.

[6] The matter was listed for hearing on 2 March 2016 at 2.00 pm.

[7] On 2 March 2017, the Respondent emailed the Commission withdrawing its request for a hearing.

[8] The hearing for 2.00 pm was cancelled.

[9] I am satisfied that the ETU has satisfied the statutory prerequisites for a protected action ballot order and I am satisfied that the ETU is genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

[10] Further, I am satisfied that the ballot questions have sufficient clarity to enable employees to make an informed choice.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 See s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009

2 Ibid s.437(1)

3 Ibid s.437(3)

4 s.440

5 s.438(1)

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR590575>