DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Voice
v
Limro Cleaning Services Pty Ltd
(B2015/481)

Australian Capital Territory
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC	MELBOURNE, 30 APRIL 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Limro Cleaning Services Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by United Voice (the Union) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Limro Cleaning Services Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The Union has provided a Statement addressing the statutory grounds. That Statement makes it clear that the parties have met on four occasions since 5 December 2014 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 28 April 2015 my Chambers contacted the Ms Lucy Aloe, Office Manager of the Respondent regarding the application. On 29 April 2015 I was advised by email from Bob Trpeski of the Respondent that the Respondent did not oppose the Union’s application for a protected action ballot order. In doing so, the Respondent did not challenge that the Union had been and was genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

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

[5] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order [PR566614] is based on the draft order provided by the Union and will be issued with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Voice v Limro Cleaning Services Pty Ltd involves a dispute between a union, United Voice, and an employer, Limro Cleaning Services Pty Ltd, over a proposed industrial action ballot. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the union could proceed with a ballot of its members, employees of Limro Cleaning Services Pty Ltd, for protected industrial action. The legal issues centred around whether the union had complied with the necessary legislative requirements to conduct the ballot, particularly under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The union argued that it had followed all requisite steps, while the employer contended that there were significant procedural errors that invalidated the ballot process.

The Fair Work Commission examined whether United Voice had properly notified Limro Cleaning Services Pty Ltd and provided all relevant information as mandated by the Fair Work Act. The employer argued that the union had failed to provide sufficient detail about the proposed action and the reasons behind it, which undermined the validity of the ballot. In response, the union claimed that all required notifications had been made and that the employer had been given ample opportunity to respond. The Commission assessed the evidence and documentation presented by both parties to determine if the union's procedural compliance was adequate.

After careful consideration, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the union had not fully complied with the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot. The Commission found that there were deficiencies in the notification and information provided to the employer, which meant that the ballot could not proceed as planned. Consequently, the Commission ruled against the union's application to conduct the ballot. This decision was based on the principle that procedural fairness and transparency are essential to the integrity of the industrial relations process. As a result, the union's application to hold the ballot was dismissed.

United Voice v Limro Cleaning Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established