DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless
(B2021/325)

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 PR729804.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the United Workers' Union and Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from the Union's proposed protected action ballot of Spotless's employees. The Union sought to conduct a ballot to determine employee support for potential industrial action, while Spotless challenged the ballot's validity and sought to prevent it from proceeding.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the Union's ballot complied with the necessary procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the proposed industrial action was lawful. The Commission had to determine whether the Union provided adequate information to employees, whether the ballot was conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, and if the proposed action was genuinely for a protected action purpose.

The Commission found that the Union's ballot did not comply with the requirements under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Union failed to provide employees with the necessary information about the proposed action and the potential consequences. The Commission concluded that the ballot was not conducted in a fair and reasonable manner, and thus, the proposed industrial action could not proceed. As a result, the Commission issued an order preventing the Union from proceeding with the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that unions comply with procedural requirements when conducting ballots for industrial action. The Commission's order preventing the Union from proceeding with the ballot highlights the need for unions to provide adequate information to employees and conduct ballots in a fair and reasonable manner. This case serves as a reminder to unions of the importance of adhering to the legal requirements when seeking to organise industrial action on behalf of their members.

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