DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Wood Group PSN Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/147)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 17 FEBRUARY 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Wood Group PSN Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Wood Group PSN Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 17 February 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr D Timmers of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR590348.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to consider whether a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Wood Group PSN Australia Pty Ltd was a genuine protected action. The employees were members of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and were seeking to conduct a ballot of members to consider protected action relating to the termination of employment of the employees. The employer, Wood Group PSN Australia Pty Ltd, argued that the proposed ballot was not a genuine protected action because it was not related to an industrial dispute.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was a genuine protected action under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission needed to determine whether the proposed action was in relation to an industrial dispute and whether it was protected action. The Commission also needed to consider whether the proposed ballot was genuine and whether the union had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the members were provided with accurate and relevant information to enable them to make an informed decision.

The Commission held that the proposed ballot was a genuine protected action. The Commission found that the proposed action was in relation to an industrial dispute because the employees were seeking to protect their employment conditions in the event of termination. The Commission also found that the proposed action was protected action because it was a step taken by the union to protect the interests of its members in relation to their employment. The Commission held that the proposed ballot was genuine because the union had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the members were provided with accurate and relevant information to enable them to make an informed decision.

The Commission ordered that the employer must allow the union to conduct the proposed ballot of members to consider protected action relating to the termination of employment of the employees. The employer was also ordered to provide the union with a list of employees who were members of the union and who were affected by the proposed termination of employment.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Wood Group PSN Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established