Application by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia — Benchmark

Ratio

The FWC must make a protected action ballot order where an application has been made under s.437 and the FWC is satisfied that the applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer. The CEPU satisfied these statutory requirements via statutory declaration, and accordingly the order was made.

Outcome

For applicant granted

Authority signal

Cited 1× Signal-weighted score: 0.0

Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority, green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data, amber = caution, red = treated negatively.

Key facts · 4

Application made by CEPU on 11 January 2016
Application concerned proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions
Respondent did not oppose the making of the order
CEPU demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements via Statutory Declaration by Damian King, CEPU Official

Factors

For

CEPU demonstrated compliance with s.443(1) requirements
Respondent did not oppose the order
Applicant provided statutory declaration evidence of genuine attempts to reach agreement

Against

Legislation referenced

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.437
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.443(1)

Concept tags · 3

[P]Good faith bargaining [P]Protected action ballot order [S]Enterprise agreement approval

Principles · 1

articulates para 3

The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if an application has been made under s.437 and the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer.

Related cases · 10

Decisions sharing two or more primary concepts with this case.

Citation	Court	Date	Outcome	Shared	Cited
[2010] FWAFB 9963 J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia	FWAFB	2010-12-23	Resolved	2	37
[2015] FWCFB 210 Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and...	FWC — Full Bench	2015-02-10	Against applicant	2	31
[2010] FWAFB 1714 Stuartholme School and Others (on behalf of two groups of Catholic education...	FWAFB	2010-03-03	Against applicant	2	4
[2009] FWAFB 599 Australian Postal Corporation v Communications, Electrical, Electronic,...	FWAFB	2009-10-12	Against applicant	2	2
[2010] FWAFB 344 Australian Postal Corporation v Communications, Electrical, Electronic,...	FWAFB	2010-01-20	Against applicant	2	2
[2017] FWCFB 1019 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (105N) v AGL Loy Yang Pty...	FWC — Full Bench	2017-03-02		2	0
[2016] FWC 2716 Application by "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred...	FWC	2016-01-01	For applicant	2	2
[2013] FWC 166 Application by United Voice; Application by Communications, Electrical,...	FWC	2013-01-01	For applicant	2	1
[2013] FWC 630 Application by "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred...	FWC	2013-01-01	For applicant	2	1
[2013] FWC 694 Application by Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The	FWC	2013-01-01	Against applicant	2	1

Archived text (310 words)

Application by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2016] FWC 233 (13 January 2016) [2016] FWC 233 FAIR WORK COMMISSION DECISION Fair Work Act 2009 s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions (B2016/161) COMMISSIONER RYAN MELBOURNE, 13 JANUARY 2016 Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Thales Australia Limited trading as Australian Munitions. [1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) for a protected action ballot in relation to employees of Thales Australia Limited T/A Australian Munitions (the Respondent). The application was made on 11 January 2016. [2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order. [3] Section 443(1) of the Act says: 443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order (1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if: (a) an application has been made under section 437 ; and (b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. [4] The CEPU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a Statutory Declaration declared by Mr Damian King, an Official of the CEPU. [5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the CEPU. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code A, PR576056>