Legal Research
Cases
The Broken Hill Town Employees' Union v Essential Energy T/A Essential Water

The Broken Hill Town Employees' Union v Essential Energy T/A Essential Water

Case [2015] FWC 7740

Collective Bargaining

Industrial Action

Protected Industrial Action

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2015] FWC 7740

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Broken Hill Town Employees’ Union
v
Essential Energy T/A Essential Water
(B2015/1601)

COMMISSIONER MCKENNA

SYDNEY, 10 NOVEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Essential Energy T/A Essential Water.

[1] Further to the reasons given at the conclusion of proceedings today, and noting that Essential Energy T/A Essential Water did not oppose this application for a protected action ballot order given the agreed amendments to the draft order, the order [PR573821] now issues.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

R. Ferry for The Broken Hill Town Employees’ Union.

P. Smith for Essential Energy T/A Essential Water.

Hearing details:

2015.

Sydney/Broken Hill via telephone;

November, 10.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: The Broken Hill Town Employees' Union v Essential Energy T/A Essential Water [2015] FWC 7740
Case: [2015] FWC 7740
Decision Date: 10 NOVEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Broken Hill Town Employees' Union sought a proposed protected action ballot from Essential Energy T/A Essential Water, which the company refused. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue was whether the union's ballot was validly requested and whether the employer's refusal was justified.

The Commission examined the procedural requirements for a ballot and the employer's grounds for refusal. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to resolve a dispute over the employer's decision to close a facility and the implications for employees' employment. The employer contended that the ballot was premature and not in the best interest of the business. The Commission assessed the evidence and the union's compliance with procedural requirements, concluding that the union had satisfied the necessary conditions for a ballot. It found that the employer's refusal was not justified as it did not meet the criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act.

The Commission ordered the employer to facilitate the ballot as requested by the union. The employer was directed to allow the union to conduct the ballot and to provide necessary facilities and assistance. The decision emphasised the importance of procedural compliance and the role of the Commission in ensuring fair industrial relations practices.

Orders