DECISION

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

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Chemring Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/23)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 10 JANUARY 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chemring Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by The Australian Workers’ Union (the 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 Chemring Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 10 January 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 C Winter 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 PR589233.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought an application against Chemring Australia Pty Ltd concerning a proposed protected action ballot of the company's employees. The dispute centred around the union's request for the company to allow a ballot of its employees to determine if they would support protected industrial action. The Federal Court of Australia was the forum for this matter.

The primary legal issue was whether the company was required to facilitate the union's ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that the company's refusal to allow the ballot was unlawful and that the company was obliged to provide reasonable access to the workplace and its employees for the purpose of the ballot. The company, on the other hand, contended that it had provided sufficient access and that the union's request was unreasonable.

The court held that the company's refusal to allow the union to conduct a ballot was unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The court found that the union had not been granted reasonable access to the workplace and its employees for the purpose of the ballot, as required by the Fair Work Act. The court also determined that the company's refusal to allow the ballot was not based on any valid reason and that the union's request was reasonable. The court ordered the company to allow the union to conduct the ballot and to provide reasonable access to the workplace and its employees for this purpose.

The court's decision in this matter is significant for employers and unions alike, as it reinforces the importance of providing reasonable access to the workplace and employees for the purpose of a ballot. Employers should ensure that they are complying with their obligations under the Fair Work Act and that they are not unreasonably refusing access to their workplace and employees for the purpose of a ballot. Unions, on the other hand, should ensure that their requests for access are reasonable and that they are not attempting to impose an unreasonable burden on the employer.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Chemring 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