DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union
v
Shield Fire Systems Pty Ltd
(B2021/1020)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Shield Fire Systems Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 21 October 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Erin Hennessy 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 PR735119.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union sought an injunction against Shield Fire Systems Pty Ltd to prevent the company from proceeding with its proposed protected action ballot of employees. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the union's proposed protected action ballot was unlawful, as the union had not provided the employer with the required particulars of the proposed action. The court had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot was in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and, if so, whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the employer from proceeding with the ballot.

The court found that the union's proposed ballot did not include the particulars of the proposed action, which was a requirement under the Fair Work Act. The court considered that the union's failure to provide the particulars of the proposed action was a serious breach of the Act and that an injunction was necessary to prevent the employer from proceeding with the ballot. The court emphasised that the particulars of the proposed action were critical to ensuring that the employer could properly assess the potential impact of the proposed action and to facilitate meaningful discussions between the employer and the union. The court granted the union an injunction to prevent the employer from proceeding with the ballot.

The court's decision highlights the importance of providing the required particulars of proposed protected action in a ballot, and the potential consequences of failing to do so. Employers and unions should ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act to avoid potential legal disputes.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union v Shield Fire Systems 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