DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
Section 437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Voice
v
CSR Limited
(B2019/588)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 26 JULY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CSR Limited.

[1] This is an application lodged on 25 July 2019 by United Voice (the Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CSR Limited (the Respondent).

[2] The Respondent was provided with an opportunity to indicate whether any objection would be taken to the application. By letter dated 16 July 2019, the Respondent advises that:

“… we will not be opposing the application. We do request for it to be noted that we do not support the Application and believe the Application is premature given the parties have only met on four occasions.”

[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 Kevin Sneddon of United Voice dated 25 July 2019, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and confirming 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 section 443(1) of the FW Act have been met.

[5] I am also satisfied that the Applicant has given notice in accordance with section 440 of the FW Act.

[6] An order in conformity with the FW Act is being issued in conjunction with this decision. 1

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR710751

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of United Voice v CSR Limited was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from a proposed protected action ballot of employees of CSR Limited, which United Voice sought to conduct. United Voice, an organisation representing the interests of certain employees, sought to organise a ballot to determine if the employees wished to engage in protected industrial action. CSR Limited opposed the ballot, arguing that it did not comply with the necessary legislative requirements.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot notice proposed by United Voice met the statutory criteria for a valid protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the ballot notice included all the information required by the Fair Work Act, including a clear and concise description of the proposed action, the duration of the proposed action, and the consequences for the employees and the employer if the action proceeded.

The Commission found that the ballot notice did not sufficiently detail the proposed action, its duration, and the consequences for both employees and the employer. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the ballot notice was invalid as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. As a result, the Commission did not grant the authorisation for the proposed ballot.

No further orders were made beyond the ruling that the proposed ballot was invalid. The Commission concluded that the ballot notice failed to provide the necessary information for employees to make an informed decision regarding the proposed industrial action.

United Voice v CSR Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established