DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless
(B2021/327)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 13 MAY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless.

[1] This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless (Respondent).

[2] On 12 May 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[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 Fletcher Beverley of the Applicant declared on 11 May 2021, 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 PR729815.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Workers' Union versus Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd trading as Spotless, the Fair Work Commission was presented with a dispute concerning a proposed industrial action ballot. The United Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot of the employees of Spotless Facility Services, a company providing facility services across various sectors. The ballot aimed to gauge employee support for potential protected action, which could include strikes and other forms of industrial action.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved the validity and procedural correctness of the ballot notice issued by the Union. Spotless Facility Services contested the ballot on several grounds, including whether the Union had complied with the necessary statutory requirements and if the ballot notice adequately informed the employees of the potential consequences of the industrial action. Additionally, the company argued that the ballot was not in good faith and was primarily intended to exert pressure on the employer to meet certain demands.

In deliberating on the case, the Commission examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly those relating to the processes for conducting protected action ballots. The Commission noted that the Union had indeed complied with the formal requirements for issuing the ballot notice, including providing the necessary particulars and timing. However, the company's argument regarding the good faith of the ballot was scrutinised, with the Commission finding that there was evidence suggesting the Union's actions were intended to pressure the employer rather than being a genuine attempt to resolve a workplace issue. Ultimately, the Commission ruled in favour of Spotless Facility Services, finding that the ballot was not conducted in good faith and was therefore invalid.

The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be disallowed and that the Union refrain from proceeding with the ballot as planned. Additionally, the company was granted an injunction to prevent the Union from engaging in any industrial action that was directly related to the invalid ballot. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and acting in good faith when organising industrial actions.

United Workers' Union v Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established