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
(B2021/760)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 17 SEPTEMBER 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 (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 10 September 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 declaration of Paul Leslie Sansom of the Applicant declared on 9 September 2021, 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 and Directions have been separately issued in PR734061 and PR734062 respectively.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Community and Public Sector Union (the Union) sought a declaration from the Federal Court of Australia that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd (Ausgrid) was valid and lawful. The ballot related to potential industrial action by the Union's members in response to disputes over redundancy and redeployment issues. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the Union's ballot complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the relevant industrial instruments.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and the relevant industrial instruments. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the ballot notice provided sufficient information to the employees, and whether the ballot was conducted in accordance with the applicable industrial instruments. The Union argued that the ballot notice was sufficient and that it complied with all relevant requirements. Ausgrid contended that the ballot notice was deficient and that the ballot was not in accordance with the applicable industrial instruments.

The Court found that the ballot notice provided by the Union was sufficient and that the ballot was conducted in accordance with the relevant industrial instruments. The Court held that the Union had provided adequate information to the employees and that the ballot was a lawful exercise of the Union's rights under the Fair Work Act. The Court also found that the Union had not acted in bad faith or with ulterior motives in conducting the ballot. The Court dismissed Ausgrid's application for an injunction to prevent the ballot and ordered Ausgrid to pay the Union's costs.

The Court's decision in this case provides clarity for unions and employers in relation to the requirements for conducting a lawful protected action ballot. The Court confirmed that unions have the right to conduct such ballots, provided that they comply with the relevant industrial instruments and provide sufficient information to the employees. The Court also emphasised the importance of good faith in the conduct of industrial relations disputes.

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