Sean Tierney v CUB Pty Ltd T/A Carlton & United Breweries

[2018] FWC 6279

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Sean Tierney

CUB Pty Ltd T/A Carlton & United Breweries

(B2018/905)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 10 OCTOBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Carlton & United Breweries.

This is an application by Mr Sean Tierney (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CUB Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 9 October 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR701193.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sean Tierney, an employee of CUB Pty Ltd, trading as Carlton & United Breweries, sought to prevent the company from conducting a proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected industrial action. The Fair Work Commission was the court that heard this matter. The primary legal issue the Commission had to resolve was whether the proposed ballot, which was to be held under section 361 of the Fair Work Act 2009, complied with the statutory requirements. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the ballot notice provided by the employer sufficiently informed employees about the proposed industrial action and their rights and obligations.

The Commission examined the form and content of the ballot notice, considering whether it complied with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Regulations. The employer argued that the notice was adequate, while the employee contended that it was insufficient because it did not clearly outline the specific actions being proposed. After reviewing the evidence and the relevant legal provisions, the Commission found that the ballot notice was not deficient. It concluded that the notice was clear enough to inform employees about the proposed industrial action and that the employer had fulfilled its obligations under the Act.

As a result, the Commission dismissed the application, holding that the proposed ballot was lawful. The Commission determined that the employer's notice was adequate for the purposes of the Act, and there was no basis to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that ballot notices meet the statutory requirements to protect the rights of both employers and employees during the industrial action process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established