DECISION

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

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd
(B2018/264)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 17 APRIL 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Manildra Energy 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 Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 17 April 2018 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 W Phillips 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 PR602084.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union took legal action against Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd concerning a proposed ballot of employees for protected action. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the ballot was properly conducted under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was required to consider the process followed for the ballot and whether it complied with the legal requirements set forth by the Fair Work Act, particularly regarding the notice and timing of the ballot.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the ballot notice was valid and whether the timing of the ballot was reasonable. The union argued that the ballot notice did not adequately inform the employees of the specific matters to be voted on, while the company maintained that the notice was sufficient and that the timing was appropriate. The court needed to assess the adequacy of the notice and whether the timing of the ballot allowed employees sufficient time to consider the issues before voting.

The court found that the ballot notice was inadequate as it did not clearly specify the matters to be voted on, which led to confusion among the employees. The court also determined that the timing of the ballot was unreasonable, as it did not allow employees sufficient time to consider the implications of the vote. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union, stating that the ballot was not properly conducted and thus invalid. The court ordered that a new ballot be held with an adequate notice and within a reasonable timeframe.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Manildra Energy 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