DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Voice
v
CSR Building Products Limited T/A CSR Bradford
(B2019/78)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 1 FEBRUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CSR Building Products Limited T/A CSR Bradford.

[1] This is an application by the United Voice (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CSR Building Products Limited T/A CSR Bradford (Respondent).

[2] On 1 February 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr L Orr 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 PR704492.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of United Voice v CSR Building Products Limited T/A CSR Bradford, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to determine the validity of a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of CSR Building Products. The union, United Voice, sought to organise a ballot for its members to vote on protected action, while CSR Building Products contested the ballot's legitimacy. The dispute centred on whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the necessary legal requirements under the Fair Work Act.

The central legal issues before the Commission revolved around the procedural validity of the ballot notice and whether the union had adequately notified the employer of the proposed action. CSR Building Products argued that the ballot notice was flawed because it did not sufficiently detail the nature and scope of the proposed action, which was necessary for the employer to effectively respond to the proposed industrial action. Conversely, United Voice contended that the notice was adequate and that the employer had been sufficiently informed.

The Commission carefully examined the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act and the specific provisions relating to industrial action notices. It found that while the union had provided a general outline of the proposed action, the notice lacked sufficient detail to enable the employer to effectively respond. The Commission held that the notice was inadequate as it did not provide specific information about the nature, scope, and potential impact of the proposed action on the employer's operations. Consequently, the proposed ballot was not procedurally valid.

The Commission's decision was grounded in the need for clarity and specificity in the communication of industrial action to ensure that employers can adequately assess and respond to the proposed action. As a result, the Commission dismissed the union's application, ruling that the proposed ballot did not meet the necessary legal standards.

United Voice v CSR Building Products Limited T/A CSR Bradford

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established