DECISION

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

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Steel Cement Pty Ltd T/A Steel Cement
(B2016/569)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 MAY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Steel Cement Pty Ltd.

[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 Steel Cement Pty Ltd t/a Steel Cement (the Respondent).

[2] On 26 May 2016 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 Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, 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 PR580761.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought an application before the Fair Work Commission against Steel Cement Pty Ltd, seeking approval to conduct a ballot of employees for potential protected action. The union aimed to ascertain the employees' support for a dispute over wages and conditions. The Commission, presided over by Commissioner M. J. Bryant, was tasked with determining whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue was whether the union's proposed ballot met the statutory criteria for protected action under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the ballot notice provided sufficient details about the proposed action, the employees' rights and obligations, and the implications of the action on both the employees and the employer. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the union had provided the employer with the required information about the proposed action.

Commissioner Bryant concluded that the union's ballot notice did not meet the statutory requirements. The notice was found to be deficient in providing the employees with sufficient information about their rights and obligations, as well as the potential consequences of the proposed action. The court emphasised the importance of clear and comprehensive communication to ensure that employees are fully informed before participating in a ballot. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the proposed ballot was not approved. The Commission did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the application.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Steel Cement Pty Ltd T/A Steel Cement

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established