DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless
(B2021/326)

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 PR729811.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the Fair Work Commission was initiated by the United Workers' Union against Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd, trading as Spotless. The union sought to conduct a ballot of employees to determine their support for protected industrial action. Spotless, on the other hand, opposed the ballot, raising concerns about the potential disruption to its business operations and the validity of the union's request. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is tasked with resolving disputes related to workplace relations and employment standards in Australia.

The primary legal issues that the Commission had to address were whether the union's request for a ballot met the statutory requirements for protected action and whether the proposed industrial action was likely to cause undue hardship to Spotless' business operations. The Commission considered the union's evidence regarding the nature of the dispute, the procedural fairness of the ballot process, and the potential impact of the action on Spotless' ability to provide services. Spotless argued that the ballot would cause significant disruption and that the union's request did not comply with the necessary legal criteria.

In its decision, the Commission found that the union had demonstrated a genuine workplace dispute and that the ballot process was conducted fairly. The Commission acknowledged Spotless' concerns about business disruption but determined that the union's proposed action was within the scope of protected industrial action as defined by the Fair Work Act. The Commission concluded that the potential disruption did not outweigh the union's right to seek support for its industrial action and that Spotless had not provided sufficient evidence to establish undue hardship. As a result, the Commission approved the union's request to conduct the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the United Workers' Union could proceed with the ballot of Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd's employees to determine their support for proposed protected action. The Commission's decision recognised the union's right to organise and engage in collective bargaining while also considering the legitimate interests of the employer. The outcome underscored the importance of adhering to legal processes and the balance between employee rights and employer obligations in workplace disputes.

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