Australian Workers' Union, The v Plantic Technologies Limited

[2020] FWC 20

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Workers' Union, The

Plantic Technologies Limited

(B2020/2)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 3 JANUARY 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Plantic Technologies Limited.

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 Plantic Technologies Limited (Respondent).

On 3 January 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

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.

An order has been separately issued in PR715681.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, on behalf of the employees of Plantic Technologies Limited, sought an injunction to prevent the employer from interfering with a proposed ballot for protected action. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter and determined whether the employer's actions constituted an unlawful interference with the union's right to organise. The legal issues before the Commission were whether Plantic Technologies Limited had unlawfully interfered with the union's right to organise and whether the proposed ballot constituted protected action.

The Commission found that Plantic Technologies Limited had indeed interfered with the union's right to organise. The employer had provided employees with information that could be reasonably interpreted as discouraging them from participating in the proposed ballot. This was deemed to be an unlawful interference with the union's activities. Furthermore, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was protected action, as it was part of a process to facilitate discussions about potential industrial action. The Commission held that the employer's actions were not only an interference with the union's right to organise but also an unlawful attempt to influence employees' participation in protected industrial activities.

In light of these findings, the Commission issued an order restraining Plantic Technologies Limited from interfering with the proposed ballot and the union's right to organise. The employer was directed to take specific steps to ensure that employees were not coerced or unduly influenced in their decision to participate in the ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of maintaining a neutral stance in matters related to union activities and protected action, reinforcing the rights of both employers and employees in the workplace.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established