DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union;
Community and Public Sector Union
v
Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd
(B2021/437)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 23 JUNE 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the United Services Branch of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU) and the Community and Public Sector Union of NSW (CPSU) (Applicants) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 18 June 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declarations of Troy Michael Dunne and Matthew Drake-Brockman of the Applicants declared on 8 June 2021 and 17 June 2021 respectively, setting out the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR730902.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Community and Public Sector Union v Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to consider an application by the Community and Public Sector Union to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd. The ballot was intended to gauge support for potential industrial action, including a strike, due to ongoing disputes concerning employment conditions and workplace issues. The legal matters at hand revolved around whether the union's application complied with the requisite procedural and substantive requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the proposed industrial action was justified under the Act's provisions.

The Commission carefully examined the union's application to determine if it met the necessary criteria for a protected action ballot, including the requirement that the union provide specific details about the proposed action and its reasons. The key issue was whether the union's proposed action was related to a "work dispute" within the meaning of the Act. Additionally, the Commission considered the potential impact of the proposed industrial action on the public, the necessity of the action, and whether there had been genuine and meaningful negotiations between the union and the employer. The Commission needed to balance the union's right to organise and take industrial action against the public interest and the employer's right to conduct its business without undue interference.

After a thorough examination of the evidence and submissions, the Commission found that the union's application did not meet the procedural requirements, as it did not provide sufficient detail about the nature and scope of the proposed industrial action. Furthermore, the Commission held that the union had not demonstrated that the proposed action was necessary or that it was related to a genuine work dispute. Consequently, the Commission rejected the union's application, emphasising the importance of proper procedure and the need for meaningful negotiations. The employer, Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd, was thus relieved from the potential disruption of the proposed industrial action.

Community and Public Sector Union v Ausgrid Management 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