DECISION

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

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2017/799)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2017

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

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

[2] On 11 September 2017 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 Mr S Burke 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 PR595903.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought proceedings against Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd concerning a proposed protected action ballot of employees. The Union alleged that Broadspectrum failed to comply with the Fair Work Act 2009 by not providing the necessary information to employees and not allowing them sufficient time to consider and vote in the ballot. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter and was tasked with determining whether Broadspectrum had breached the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Broadspectrum had fulfilled its obligations under the Fair Work Act in relation to the proposed protected action ballot. This involved assessing whether the company had provided adequate information to employees and allowed sufficient time for them to consider the ballot. The Commission considered the specific provisions of the Act and the applicable case law to determine the standard of compliance required.

The Commission found that Broadspectrum had not adequately provided the required information to employees and had not allowed them sufficient time to consider the ballot. The Union had demonstrated that employees had not received the necessary information and had not been given enough time to consider the ballot, which was in breach of the Act. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the Union, finding that Broadspectrum had failed to comply with its obligations. As a result, the proposed ballot was deemed invalid.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that Broadspectrum take the necessary steps to comply with the Fair Work Act in relation to any future protected action ballots. This included providing employees with the required information and allowing sufficient time for them to consider any ballot. The company was also required to pay the Union's costs of the proceedings.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established