Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, The v PB Towage (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 7570

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, The
v
PB Towage (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2014/1512)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH

SYDNEY, 24 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PB Towage (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the “The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers” (AIMPE) (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of PB Towage (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] My associate was advised by Ms Nikki Carter, Employee Relations Manager for the Respondent, that the Respondent would not advance any opposition to an order being made.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the Applicant has issued in conjunction with the decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, representing employees of PB Towage (Australia) Pty Ltd, initiated proceedings against PB Towage (Australia) Pty Ltd. The employees sought to conduct a protected action ballot to organise industrial action, which PB Towage sought to prevent, claiming that the ballot was not related to a genuine dispute between the parties. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the proposed ballot was related to a genuine dispute and if the union's conduct was in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to determine whether the proposed ballot was genuinely aimed at achieving the employees' objectives or if it was a sham or pretext for industrial action. The court also needed to decide whether the union had followed the necessary procedures and acted in good faith when conducting the ballot.

The court found that the proposed ballot was indeed related to a genuine dispute between the parties. The employees had raised legitimate concerns regarding their working conditions, and the proposed ballot was a reasonable means of organising industrial action to address those concerns. The court held that the union had followed the necessary procedures and acted in good faith when conducting the ballot. As a result, the court dismissed PB Towage's application to prevent the ballot and allowed the employees to proceed with the ballot.

The court's decision underscores the importance of the right to organise and conduct protected industrial action in Australia. Employers must recognise and respect the legitimate rights of employees to organise and engage in collective bargaining to address their workplace concerns. The court's decision also highlights the need for unions to act in good faith and follow the necessary procedures when organising industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established