DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v
Norstar Recycling Pty Ltd
(B2018/579)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Norstar Recycling 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 Norstar Recycling Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 11 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 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 PR608919.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, acting on behalf of its members, brought proceedings against Norstar Recycling Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on a proposed protected action ballot of the employees of Norstar Recycling, which the union sought to conduct in order to gauge support for potential industrial action. The union's objective was to achieve better wages and conditions for its members employed by Norstar Recycling. The employer contested the ballot, arguing it was unnecessary and would disrupt business operations.

The key legal issues the Commission had to resolve included whether the proposed protected action ballot was warranted under the Fair Work Act, specifically sections 386 and 387. The Commission also needed to consider the employer's arguments regarding the potential disruption and whether the ballot would be conducted in a fair and orderly manner. Furthermore, the Commission needed to determine whether any conditions or safeguards could be imposed to mitigate the employer's concerns while still allowing the union to proceed with the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had made out a case for the necessity of a protected action ballot. The Commission determined that the union had provided sufficient evidence of unresolved issues and that the proposed industrial action was a reasonable step to address these matters. The Commission acknowledged the employer's concerns about potential disruption but found that these could be managed through appropriate procedural safeguards. As such, the Commission authorised the union to proceed with the ballot, subject to specific conditions to ensure it was conducted in an orderly and fair manner. The employer was directed to facilitate the ballot process and provide necessary information to employees.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Norstar Recycling 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