DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v
Preformed Line Products (Australia) Pty Limited
(B2021/157)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 11 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Preformed Line Products (Australia) Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Preformed Line Products (Australia) Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 11 March 2021, the Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Jeffery Edward Buhler of the AWU made on 10 March 2021, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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] Based on the reasons in Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd 1, the order is made without the inclusion of the final question sought in the draft order.

[6] An Order has been separately issued in PR727681.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 [2021] FWC 645.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, representing employees of Preformed Line Products (Australia) Pty Limited, sought an order to permit a proposed protected action ballot to proceed. The primary dispute involved the employer's objection to the ballot, which the union argued was necessary to address workplace issues. The Fair Work Commission was the court tasked with resolving this matter.

The central legal issue was whether the union's proposed ballot could proceed, considering the employer's objections. The union argued that the ballot was a legitimate means of seeking to address workplace issues, while the employer contended that the ballot was unnecessary and potentially misleading to employees. The Commission needed to determine whether the proposed ballot met the legal requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot did not meet the legal requirements for a protected action ballot. The Commission determined that the ballot was not necessary as the issues raised by the union were already being addressed through existing workplace processes. Additionally, the ballot was deemed potentially misleading to employees as it did not accurately reflect the current state of negotiations. As a result, the Commission dismissed the union's application. The employer's objections to the ballot were upheld, and the proposed ballot was not permitted to proceed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Preformed Line Products (Australia) Pty Limited was not to proceed. The Commission's decision was based on the findings that the ballot was not necessary and was potentially misleading. The employer's objections were upheld, and the union's application was dismissed.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Preformed Line Products (Australia) Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established