DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v
Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber
(B2019/1126)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Hyne & Son Pty Ltd t/a Hyne Timber (Respondent).

[2] On 24 September 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Anthony Beers of the AWU declared on 13 September 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR712749.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) sought to organise a protected action ballot of the employees of Hyne & Son Pty Ltd, trading as Hyne Timber. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, with the primary issue being the validity of the ballot process. The Union argued that the ballot process was necessary to secure better working conditions and wages for the employees, while Hyne & Son Pty Ltd contended that the ballot was unlawful and should be halted.

The legal issues revolved around whether the proposed ballot process complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the ballot was conducted in a manner consistent with the procedural requirements set out in the Act. Additionally, the Court considered whether the ballot was being used for a legitimate industrial purpose or whether it was being abused to cause undue hardship or damage to the employer's business.

In its decision, the Court found that the ballot process did not comply with the statutory requirements. The Union had failed to provide adequate notice of the ballot to the employer, which was a fundamental requirement under the Act. Furthermore, the Court determined that the proposed ballot was being used to exert undue pressure on the employer and cause significant disruption to its business operations. Consequently, the Court ruled that the proposed ballot was unlawful and ordered that it be stopped immediately.

The Court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory provisions and the need to ensure that industrial action is conducted in a manner that is fair and reasonable for all parties involved. The Court emphasised the importance of following proper procedures when organising a ballot, as these procedures are designed to protect both the rights of employees and the legitimate interests of employers. The Court's ruling in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the legal framework governing industrial action in Australia.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established