DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v
Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd
(B2018/551)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 6 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 6 July 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 P O’Brien 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 PR608842.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought an application against Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd, seeking an injunction to prevent the company from proceeding with a ballot of its employees concerning potential industrial action. The dispute centred around the validity and timing of the proposed ballot, with the union arguing that the ballot was not conducted in accordance with the relevant industrial laws. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court had to determine whether the union's application for an injunction was justified, focusing on whether the company's proposed ballot adhered to the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the ballot was called at an appropriate time, given the ongoing negotiations and the potential impact on the industrial relations process.

The court examined the procedural fairness of the ballot, the timing of the ballot in relation to ongoing negotiations, and the requirements of the Fair Work Act. It found that the company had not met the legal criteria for conducting the ballot, as it had not provided the required 28 days' notice to the bargaining representative. The court also considered the impact of the ballot on the ongoing negotiations and the potential for the ballot to disrupt the industrial relations process. Based on these factors, the court granted the union's application for an injunction, preventing the company from proceeding with the ballot.

The court issued an injunction restraining Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd from conducting the proposed ballot of its employees. The injunction was granted on the basis that the company had not complied with the legal requirements for the timing and notice of the ballot. The court's decision was based on the statutory provisions of the Fair Work Act and the need to ensure procedural fairness in the industrial relations process.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Monadelphous Engineering 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