United Voice v CUB Pty Ltd Summary

[2018] FWC 7440

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Voice

CUB Pty Ltd

(B2018/1140)

Deputy President MASSON

MELBOURNE, 6 DECEMBER 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 5 December 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 PR702936.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, United Voice sought authorisation for a proposed protected action ballot of employees of CUB Pty Ltd. The union argued that the proposed industrial action was protected action in relation to a “workplace dispute” within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. CUB Pty Ltd opposed the authorisation, arguing that the union's claim did not meet the statutory requirements for authorisation of protected industrial action.

The central legal issue was whether the union's claim satisfied the criteria for authorisation of protected action under the Fair Work Act. This involved determining whether the proposed action related to a "workplace dispute" and if it was taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Commission examined the nature of the dispute, the terms of the proposed action, and whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements for authorisation.

The Commission found that the proposed protected action related to a workplace dispute concerning the terms and conditions of employment, and that the union had provided sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of the Act. The union had demonstrated that the proposed action was in relation to a genuine dispute, and that it had been taken in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Commission authorised the proposed protected action ballot, emphasising the importance of the procedural safeguards in the Act designed to ensure that protected action is taken lawfully and appropriately.

The final orders of the Commission included authorisation for the union to conduct the proposed protected action ballot among the employees of CUB Pty Ltd, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions set out in the authorisation. The Commission also directed the union to provide CUB Pty Ltd with a copy of the ballot paper and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the ballot was conducted in accordance with the authorisation and the provisions of the Act.

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