Application by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (128V)
Citation: [2026] FWC 2435
What happened
The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) applied for a protected action ballot order (PABO) regarding employees of Otis Elevator Company Pty Ltd (Otis). The union seeks an enterprise agreement. Otis opposed the application, arguing the CEPU wasn't genuinely trying to reach an agreement, citing limited bargaining meetings and hasty filing of the application. Negotiations began on April 1, 2026, with three meetings held since then. Numerous claims remain outstanding, including wage rates, allowances, and superannuation.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President found a valid application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act was made and that the CEPU was genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Otis. A PABO was issued in the form sought by the union. The decision overruled Otis’s objections regarding the genuineness of bargaining efforts and the timing of the ballot order. The Commission referenced previous case law, JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia, clarifying requirements for demonstrating genuine attempts to reach an agreement.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure sufficient time is allocated for negotiations during enterprise bargaining processes. Rushing responses or failing to engage with claims can be perceived as a lack of good faith bargaining. Documenting all negotiation efforts and responses to union claims is crucial in case of disputes over the genuineness of attempts to reach an agreement.
What it means for employees
Employees should understand that unions must demonstrate they are genuinely attempting to negotiate before protected industrial action can be considered. Participating actively in negotiations and providing feedback on proposals can strengthen a union's position when seeking a PABO.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2435.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →