DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd T/A Spotless
(B2021/324)

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 Carl Ratana 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 PR729801.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union brought an application before the Fair Work Commission, seeking authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Spotless Facility Services Pty Ltd. The Union claimed that the employees were entitled to take protected action due to a dispute over the terms and conditions of their employment. The employer argued that the ballot should not proceed, asserting that the Union had failed to comply with the statutory requirements for balloting. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the Union's ballot complied with the relevant statutory provisions and if the Union had a genuine dispute with the employer over the terms and conditions of employment.

The Commission considered whether the Union had followed the necessary procedures for conducting a ballot and whether the ballot was being held for the purpose of advancing the employees' interests in a genuine dispute of interest. The Union submitted that it had given the employer the required 21 days' notice of the ballot and had outlined the nature of the dispute in the ballot paper. The employer disputed the validity of the notice provided and contended that the Union's claim of a genuine dispute was unfounded. The Commission assessed the evidence and submissions to determine whether the Union had acted in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether the ballot related to a genuine dispute of interest.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the Union had not complied with the statutory requirements for conducting the ballot, as the notice provided to the employer did not meet the necessary standards. Consequently, the Commission found that the Union's ballot was invalid, and authorisation was denied. The employer's argument regarding the lack of a genuine dispute was not directly addressed by the Commission, as the invalidity of the ballot was sufficient to dismiss the application. The Commission's decision was based on the procedural shortcomings in the Union's ballot process, and the employer's substantive claims were not considered in detail.

The Fair Work Commission denied the Union's application for authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot. The decision was grounded on the failure of the Union to provide proper notice to the employer, which was a fundamental requirement for the ballot's validity. No further orders were made by the Commission regarding the substantive dispute between the Union and the employer.

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