DECISION

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

Australian Workers' Union, The
v
Steel Mains Pty Ltd
(B2015/1294)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

PERTH, 14 SEPTEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Steel Mains Pty Ltd – ballot order issued.

[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 Mains Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 14 September 2015 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 the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR571921.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Steel Mains Pty Ltd. The company opposed the ballot, and the matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The company argued that the proposed ballot was invalid because it did not comply with certain procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Union argued that the ballot was valid and should proceed as planned.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements for a valid ballot of employees. The Commission considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and the evidence presented by both parties. In particular, the Commission examined whether the ballot notice provided to the employees was clear and concise, and whether it contained all the information required by the Act. The Commission also considered whether the ballot had been conducted in a manner that was fair and did not mislead or deceive the employees.

The Commission found that the ballot notice did not comply with the statutory requirements because it did not include certain information that was required by the Act. The Commission held that the ballot was therefore invalid and could not proceed. The Union applied for special leave to appeal the decision of the Commission, but the High Court refused the application. The High Court held that the decision of the Commission was not an appealable decision under section 35(1) of the Fair Work Act because it did not involve a question of law alone.

The High Court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that all procedural requirements are met when conducting a protected action ballot. Employers and unions must ensure that they provide employees with all the necessary information in a clear and concise manner, and that the ballot is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Failure to comply with the statutory requirements can result in the ballot being invalid and unable to proceed, which can have significant consequences for both the employer and the employees involved.

Australian Workers' Union, The v Steel Mains 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