These include the cost of hiring the ACS to vote, the employer`s efforts to support the approval process, and the parties` efforts to reach mutual agreement. Although not a strictly contemporary factor, the current environment has highlighted the distinction between conflicts of objectives between the parties by generally defending a mixture of analogous positions (e.g. B to reach an agreement) and yet polarized (e.g. B in order to reduce costs compared to the increase in wages). Once the “access delay” (i.e. the seven days before the vote) has begun, farm managers should guide site managers by keeping them informed through informal discussions and, most importantly, by providing written scripts to follow. They should also consult their legal representatives to ensure that decisions and results are correctly interpreted and summarised before being forwarded to staff. Otherwise, the company agreement may break and may lead the employer to face additional costs and effort, or, according to the federal court, this may lead to a “waste of resources”. When considering whether or not to order a protected appeal vote, the Commission must be satisfied that the negotiators of the workers who requested the election actually tried to reach an agreement. A protected measure of authorization of trade union actions must be implemented before trade union actions can be taken legally, unless the measure is taken in response to trade union actions taken by the other party in the field of company negotiations. In this case, it was alleged that a CUB officer had misrepresented the employees about the outcome and impact of litigation related to this matter within the Fair Work Board.
Although the voting procedure for the approval of an agreement has begun, the CFMEU requested a summary to stop the second day of the vote and the counting of the votes cast. When a contract of employment is put to the vote of the workers, it does not mean that the negotiations are over and dusted off at that time. Earlier this month`s decision by the Federal Court of Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union against CUB Pty Ltd  FCA 692 clarified that misleading statements made before the vote could put an end to the authorisation procedure. To avoid this, employers should directly encourage their managers to minimize the potential for misleading statements during negotiations. For advice on negotiated procedures for businesses, please contact an expert in AMMA legal or advisory services at your local AMMA office. Corporate negotiations under the Fair Work Act can be a highly technical exercise, even for experienced employers and, if not managed properly, risky. In this summary of the decision, Tayissa Popowicz, one of AMMA`s legal experts, outlines the principles behind a recent CFMEU injunction against an employer, whose employees she says she “misled” before a vote. At all stages of the negotiation, employers and their leaders must be clear and truthful about what they are communicating to employees. This includes providing correct factual reports on the results of all Fair Work Commission hearings. Orders the Commonwealth to pay the costs when the vote is taken by the ACS.
If the Commission approves the application, the order contains the following elements: The ACS has indicated that it may, in accordance with section 447 of the Act, submit requests for an extension of the closing date of a vote if it deems it necessary. In light of the ACS`s advice on the organization of votes, the Fair Work Commission will consider extended delays until the ballots close. Applicants for a protected share vote using an election agent other than the ACS are responsible for the total cost of voting, whether or not the ballot is closed. The Federal Court was aware of the “waste of resources” that would result from an injunction that would put an end to the vote. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, the Fair Work Commission is required to publish the results of ballots for protected measures as soon as possible after they have been announced. . . .