DECISION

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

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Huntsman Polyurethanes (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2017/257)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 30 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Huntsman Polyurethanes (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 Huntsman Polyurethanes (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 30 March 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 G Penn 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 PR591432.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union has initiated proceedings against Huntsman Polyurethanes (Australia) Pty Ltd, the employer, in relation to a proposed industrial action ballot among its employees. The dispute reached the Federal Court, where the Union sought to compel the employer to allow a ballot on industrial action, which the employer opposed. The core of the disagreement centred on the procedural legitimacy of the employer's refusal to facilitate the ballot. The court had to determine whether the employer's actions were in line with the applicable industrial laws and if the Union had the right to conduct the ballot as proposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the employer's refusal to permit the ballot was lawful under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the Union's ballot notice complied with the legislative requirements and if the employer's objections were justified. Additionally, the court considered whether the employer had acted in a manner consistent with its obligations to facilitate genuine and lawful industrial action. The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to determine the parameters within which the employer could refuse a ballot.

In its judgment, the court found that the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was not justified. The court determined that the Union's ballot notice adhered to the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The employer's objections were deemed insufficient to warrant a refusal under the statute. The court concluded that the employer had not demonstrated that the proposed ballot would lead to unlawful action or that it had legitimate grounds to prevent the ballot. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Union, mandating the employer to permit the ballot as requested. The court's decision underscored the importance of adherence to legal processes in facilitating industrial action and protecting the rights of employees to organise and take lawful industrial action.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Huntsman Polyurethanes (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