DECISION

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

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Nufarm Australia Limited
(B2017/219)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nufarm Australia Limited.

[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 Nufarm Australia Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 20 March 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 Swan 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 PR591104.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australian Workers' Union, The v Nufarm Australia Limited, the applicant, the Australian Workers' Union, sought an injunction to prevent the respondent, Nufarm Australia Limited, from proceeding with a proposed ballot of its employees concerning protected action. The dispute arose amidst ongoing industrial action, and the union's application was to ensure that the ballot process complied with specific legal requirements.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union's application met the threshold criteria for an interlocutory injunction under the relevant industrial relations legislation. The court had to consider the balance of convenience, the merits of the case, and whether there was a sufficient likelihood that the ballot would be unlawful if not restrained. The union argued that the proposed ballot was flawed and would likely lead to unprotected industrial action, which could harm the company.

After examining the evidence and submissions from both parties, the court found that the union had not demonstrated a sufficiently strong case on the balance of convenience or the merits to warrant an injunction. The court concluded that the union's concerns about the ballot process were speculative and did not establish a clear likelihood of unlawful action. Consequently, the court dismissed the union's application and ruled against granting the injunction.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Nufarm Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established