DECISION

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

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Keppel Prince Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Keppel Prince
(B2017/777)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 30 AUGUST 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Keppel Prince Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Keppel Prince.

[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 Keppel Prince Engineering Pty Ltd t/a Keppel Prince (Respondent).

[2] On 30 August 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 D Livingstone 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 PR595717.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, representing employees of Keppel Prince Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Keppel Prince, sought an injunction to prevent the company from taking certain actions related to a proposed ballot for protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with the Union arguing that the company's proposed actions would interfere with the ballot process. The legal issues revolved around whether the company's actions constituted an unlawful interference with the employees' right to organise and engage in protected action. The court had to determine whether the company's actions were permissible under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether they interfered with the employees' right to organise and engage in protected action.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, as well as relevant legal principles. It found that the company's actions did not constitute an unlawful interference with the employees' right to organise and engage in protected action. The court held that the company's actions were within its rights as an employer to take reasonable steps to protect its business interests and ensure that the ballot process was conducted fairly and lawfully. The court also noted that the employees had not demonstrated that the company's actions would have a significant adverse effect on the ballot process or their right to engage in protected action.

As a result of the court's decision, the Union's application for an injunction was dismissed. The court held that the company was not required to take any specific action to facilitate the ballot process, but was entitled to take reasonable steps to protect its business interests. The court emphasised the importance of employers and employees engaging in good faith and taking reasonable steps to ensure that the ballot process was conducted fairly and lawfully. The final orders of the court included a dismissal of the Union's application for an injunction and a direction for both parties to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve any outstanding issues related to the ballot process.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Keppel Prince Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Keppel Prince

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established