United Voice v CUB Pty Ltd Summary

[2018] FWC 6345

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Voice

CUB Pty Ltd

(B2018/925)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 12 OCTOBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CUB Pty Ltd.

This is an application by 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 CUB Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 11 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 Mr D Robson 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 PR701277.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Voice v CUB Pty Ltd arose from a dispute concerning a proposed ballot of employees of CUB Pty Ltd to engage in protected action. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the ballot notice issued by the union, United Voice. The primary issue was whether the ballot notice complied with the requirements of section 105 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which governs the process for such ballots. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the notice provided sufficient details to enable the employer and employees to make an informed decision.

The court examined the content and form of the ballot notice, assessing whether it met the legislative requirements. It was necessary to determine whether the notice included all relevant information about the proposed industrial action, such as the nature, duration, and effect of the action. Additionally, the court considered whether the notice was reasonably likely to inform employees about the potential consequences of the action, including any impact on their employment. The court also scrutinised the manner in which the notice was given, ensuring that it was provided in a way that was accessible and understandable to the employees.

In its reasoning, the court found that the ballot notice did not adequately inform employees of the potential consequences of the proposed action. The notice was deemed insufficient because it did not include all relevant information required by section 105 of the Act. The court concluded that the notice was not reasonably likely to enable employees to make an informed decision, as it failed to adequately explain the potential impact on their employment. Consequently, the court held that the ballot notice was invalid, and the proposed ballot could not proceed. The decision was made on the basis that the notice did not meet the statutory requirements for informing employees comprehensively and effectively.

United Voice v CUB Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established