DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Bradken Resources Pty Limited
(B2019/440)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 5 JUNE 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bradken Resources Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by the The Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bradken Resources Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 5 June 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[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 Darren Michael Cameron of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR709041

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Workers' Union, The v Bradken Resources Pty Limited, the dispute involved the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bradken Resources Pty Limited, which the union sought to conduct. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Australian Workers' Union sought to organise a ballot of its members employed by Bradken Resources regarding potential protected industrial action. The primary legal issues centred on the validity of the proposed ballot, the procedures required under the Fair Work Act 2009, and the rights of both the union and the employer in this context.

The court was required to determine whether the union had complied with the statutory requirements in proposing the ballot. Key considerations included the necessity of providing specific details to the employer, such as the proposed dates of the ballot and the specific industrial action being considered. Additionally, the court examined whether Bradken Resources had objected to the ballot within the specified timeframe and if the union had adequately addressed any such objections. The union's compliance with the procedural prerequisites under the Fair Work Act was pivotal in resolving the dispute.

The Federal Court found that the union had not strictly adhered to the procedural requirements stipulated by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court held that the union failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the proposed industrial action, which was essential for the employer to respond effectively. Consequently, the court ruled that the proposed ballot was invalid due to these procedural deficiencies. The court's decision underscored the importance of meticulous compliance with statutory requirements when organising protected action ballots.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Bradken Resources Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established