DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
(B2015/1678)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 7 DECEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[1] The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) is a bargaining representative of some employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (Robert Bosch). These employees will be covered by a proposed agreement that is currently the subject of bargaining between the AWU and Robert Bosch. These employees are currently covered by the Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013. The nominal expiry date of the agreement is 31 December 2015.

[2] Robert Bosch did not oppose the application with both parties agreeing for the ballot to be conducted by way of a postal vote.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of
Mr Steven Bonica of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s. 443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR574799.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union, on behalf of its members, sought a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd was not authorised under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Fair Work Commission (FWC) had previously authorised the ballot, but the Union challenged the authorisation on the grounds that it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia for resolution.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the FWC had correctly exercised its discretion in authorising the protected action ballot. The court had to consider whether the FWC had followed the correct process, given the specific circumstances of the proposed ballot, and whether it had adequately considered all relevant factors as required by the Act. The Union argued that the FWC had not properly exercised its discretion, while the employer contended that the FWC’s decision was correct and should be upheld.

The court found that the FWC had indeed followed the correct process in authorising the protected action ballot. It noted that the FWC had considered all relevant factors, including the specific circumstances of the proposed ballot and the potential impact on the employer and employees. The court held that the FWC’s decision was not flawed and that it had properly exercised its discretion in authorising the ballot. Consequently, the Union’s challenge to the authorisation was dismissed.

The court's decision affirmed the FWC’s authorisation of the protected action ballot. The Union’s application for a declaration that the ballot was not authorised was dismissed, and the court held that the FWC had correctly exercised its discretion in authorising the ballot. The court's decision was binding, and the authorised ballot could proceed as planned.

Australian Workers’ Union, The

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established