“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Alcoa of Australia Limited T/A Alcoa World Alumina Australia
[2022] FWC 3238
•10 DECEMBER 2022
| [2022] FWC 3238 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Alcoa of Australia Limited T/A Alcoa World Alumina Australia
(B2022/1807)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT | PERTH, 10 DECEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Alcoa of Australia Limited
The issue
On 6 December 2022, the ‘Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union’ known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made an application under s 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Alcoa of Australia Limited T/A Alcoa World Alumina Australia (the Respondent).
The matter was allocated to my Chambers on 8 December 2022 and heard on 9 December 2022. The application was properly made. There had been a ‘notification time’ in relation to a proposed agreement and there was no dispute that the Respondent and the ballot agent had received the application within the requisite statutory period.
The parties confirmed that there is no dispute between them, and I am satisfied on the evidence, that Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd (CiVS), and in particular Mr Michael Michael, should be appointed as the protected action ballot agent.
Furthermore, it was uncontentious that the Applicant had been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, and that the requirements in ss 443(1) and 437 of the Act have been met.
Whilst it initially appeared that the Respondent took issue with question 2 of the draft order that accompanied the application, following conferral between the parties, and on receipt of an amended draft order (the proposed amended draft order) from the Applicant, the Respondent indicated to the Commission that it did not intend to pursue a substantive objection to the application for the proposed amended draft order.
However, the Respondent pressed that it continued to object to the timeframe for voting and the timeframe for it to provide a list of employees to the ballot agent as set out in the proposed amended draft order on the basis that those timeframes were practically unachievable and unreasonable. On this point, the Respondent requested to be heard by the Commission on amendments to the proposed amended draft order.
Before traversing the Respondent’s objections to the timeframes for voting and the provision of the list of employees to the ballot agent, it is timely to reflect on the legislative framework regarding the making of a protected action ballot order and the directions which may be given.
Legislative framework
The Commission is obliged to issue a protected ballot order in the following the circumstances:
443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order
(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:
(a) an application has been made under section 437; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.
(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).
(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:
(a) the name of each applicant for the order;
(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;
(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;
(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.
(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.
(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:
(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and
(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.
(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.
Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.
As can be seen, s 443(1)(a) requires that an application has been made under s 437. That section relevantly provides:
437 Application for a protected action ballot order
Who may apply for a protected action ballot order
(1) A bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement, or 2 or more such bargaining representatives (acting jointly), may apply to the FWC for an order (a protected action ballot order) requiring a protected action ballot to be conducted to determine whether employees wish to engage in particular protected industrial action for the agreement.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the proposed enterprise agreement is:
(a) a greenfields agreement; or
(b) a multi‑enterprise agreement.
(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply unless there has been a notification time in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement.
Note: For notification time, see subsection 173(2). Protected industrial action cannot be taken until after bargaining has commenced (including where the scope of the proposed enterprise agreement is the only matter in dispute).
Matters to be specified in application
(3) The application must specify:
(a) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted; and
(b) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.'
(4) If the applicant wishes a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the application must specify the name of the person.
Note: The protected action ballot agent will be the Australian Electoral Commission unless the FWC specifies another person in the protected action ballot order as the protected action ballot agent (see subsection 443(4)).
(5) A group of employees specified under paragraph (3)(a) is taken to include only employees who:
(a) will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement; and
(b) either:
(i) are represented by a bargaining representative who is an applicant for the protected action ballot order; or
(ii) are bargaining representatives for themselves but are members of an employee organisation that is an applicant for the protected action ballot order.
Documents to accompany application
(6) The application must be accompanied by any documents and other information prescribed by the regulations.
The Act mandates that a protected action ballot must be conducted by a person specified in the protected action ballot order as the protected action ballot agent for the ballot or otherwise the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).[1] Further, the ballot agent must conduct the protected action ballot expeditiously and in accordance with those matters in sub-ss (a) to (e) of s 449(2) of the Act. Section 449(2)(b) refers to the timetable for the ballot and sub-s (d) to any directions given by the Commission.
Section 450 (directions for conduct of protected action ballot) applies if the ballot agent is not the AEC. It reads:
450 Directions for conduct of protected action ballot
(1) This section applies if the protected action ballot agent is not the Australian Electoral Commission.
(2) The FWC must give the protected action ballot agent written directions in relation to the following matters relating to the protected action ballot:
(a) the development of a timetable;
(b) the voting method, or methods, to be used (which cannot be a method involving a show of hands);
(c) the compilation of the roll of voters;
(d) the addition of names to, or removal of names from, the roll of voters;
(e) any other matter in relation to the conduct of the ballot that the FWC considers appropriate.
Note 1: For the purposes of paragraph (2)(b), examples of voting methods are attendance voting, electronic voting and postal voting.
Note 2: A protected action ballot agent must not contravene a term of a direction given by the FWC in relation to a protected action ballot (see subsection 463(2)).
(3) A direction given under subsection (2) may require the protected action ballot agent to comply with a provision of this Subdivision (other than subsection 454(5)) in relation to a particular matter.
Note: Subsection 454(5) provides for the Australian Electoral Commission to vary the roll of voters on its own initiative.
(4) To enable the roll of voters to be compiled, the FWC may direct, in writing, either or both of the following:
(a) the employer of the employees who are to be balloted;
(b) the applicant for the protected action ballot order;
to give to the FWC or the protected action ballot agent:
(c) the names of the employees included in the group or groups of employees specified in the protected action ballot order; and
(d) any other information that it is reasonable for the FWC or the protected action ballot agent to require to assist in compiling the roll of voters.
Evidently, s 450 applies if the agent is not the AEC. Subsection (2) requires the Commission to give the agent written directions in relation to certain prescribed matters including, but not limited to, the development of a timetable (see s 450(2)(a)), the voting method or methods (see s 450(2)(b)), the compilation of the roll of votes (see s 450(2)(c), and any other matter in relation to the conduct of the ballot that the Commission considers appropriate (see s 450(2)(e)).
The Respondent’s objections to the draft order
3.1 Unreasonable timeframe for voting
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had initially proposed a voting period of four working days after the ballot agent is provided with the relevant employee lists. Following conferral between the parties, the Applicant proposed a voting period of five working days.
The Respondent submitted that from its perspective, the timeframe for voting, even in its extended form, is practically unachievable and unreasonable. It reasoned that the timeframe for voting did not take into account:
a) the communication preferences of the Respondent’s employees;
b) the number of employees currently on leave; and
c) the Respondent’s rostering system.
In respect of communication preferences, the Respondent detailed that many of its employees had objected to providing personal email addresses and mobile phone details to the company.[2] The Respondent submitted that this meant there was a potentially larger proportion of employees who may need to be contacted by their postal addresses.
The Respondent added that it had previously taken steps to verify and update employees’ email addresses and mobile phone numbers in advance of a ballot to ensure that communications with employees can occur. Mr Gleeson, the HR-ER Director Human Resources of the Respondent, gave evidence that in the context of previous applications for protected ballot action orders, he had required supervisors and management to take appropriate steps to confer with eligible voters to ensure they were made aware of the voting process and afforded the opportunity to confirm that their personal contact details and current addresses were up-to-date and accurate.[3]
Mr Gleeson expressed that in respect of the application, the Respondent’s primary concern was to ensure that all employees eligible to vote are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to cast their vote either in favour of or against protected industrial action.[4] To date, he noted, the Respondent’s employees had not experienced (in the company’s context) voting on an electronic basis for a protected action ballot.[5]
According to Mr Gleeson, the Applicant applied for a protected action ballot order in respect of the Alcoa World Alumina Australia, WA Operations (Mechanical Trades) Agreement, 2013, in which voting was by way of postal vote overseen by the AEC and employees were afforded a twenty-day voting period.[6] However, during the hearing, it became evident that the Respondent had used electronic voting in respect of voting upon the approval of an enterprise agreement.
Concerning employees on leave, Mr Gleeson noted that the projected estimates of affected employees who are likely to be on leave is significant and his concern was that those employees may not be readily contactable or able to participate in a vote which is only open for a short period.[7] Similar concerns were held by Mr Gleeson in respect of employees who, by reason of their rosters, were not required to work for up to six days.[8] Mr Gleeson’s evidence was that certain employees may choose to utilise their time off to go on vacation to a variety of destinations and may not be readily contactable by electronic means.[9] Further, Mr Gleeson made mention of the current spike of COVID-19 cases, and the very real potential that affected employees may, for that reason, not be readily contactable by electronic means.[10]
The Respondent submitted that in circumstances where a large number of employees may need to be contacted for a postal vote, the proposed timeframe for voting is practically unachievable, and there were concerns that the proposed timeframe will be insufficient to ensure that the maximum number of affected employees are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to cast their vote on the relevant questions posed in the ballot.
3.2 Unreasonable timeframe to compile a list of employees
The Respondent observed that the Applicant initially proposed a period of three working days for Alcoa to compile a list of employees. Following conferral between the parties, the Applicant proposed a period of four working days for the Respondent to compile a list of employees albeit that again changed just prior to the hearing. The Respondent notes that ‘working days’ is not defined in the proposed amended draft order and that its operations operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The Respondent argued that from its perspective, the proposed timeframe for compiling a list of employees is practically unachievable and unreasonable even in its extended form and even if working days do not include Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays. It added that its People Solutions department (the Department) will be responsible for compiling the list of employees. It submitted that the timeframe for compiling a list of employees does not take into account:
(a) the current workload of the Department;
(b) the current shortage of senior staff members in the Department;
(c) that Department staff do not work on weekends or public holidays; and
(d) the potential risk to the health and safety of employees if an order to the effect of the proposed amended draft order is made.
Mr Gleeson explained that mandatory enterprise bargaining wage increase are currently being implemented for approximately 1,600 employees.[11] He continued that, to the best of his knowledge, this is a labour-intensive process and is required to be accurate and completed within specified timeframes.[12] Mr Gleeson said that this is equally true in respect of inputting staff bonuses and the processes of staff payroll.[13]
Providing context regarding the Department, Mr Gleeson described that the Department is comprised of salaried staff who ordinarily work Monday to Friday.[14] Mr Gleeson noted that given the extent of the Department’s existing commitments and with reference to what he had been told by the Department’s management, he did not believe that the Department currently has capacity to prepare the relevant list with the required degree of accuracy within the timeframes in the proposed amended draft order.[15]
In emphasising the lack of capacity regarding staffing of the Department, Mr Gleeson added that three senior staff members recently resigned from the Department, and this had significantly impacted upon the Department’s capacity, particularly from an oversight perspective.[16] In addition, another experienced staff member was said to be ill with a return date likely in January 2023.[17]
Applicant’s submissions
4.1 Unreasonable timeframe to compile a list of employees
The Applicant submitted that operational responsibilities are an ongoing scenario of a multinational company and solutions to meet these responsibilities are part of that scenario, including financial solutions. It continued that being understaffed is not an excuse for not meeting operational responsibilities, especially when a company has the money to hire more employees or pay overtime for existing staff to complete the task.
The Applicant noted that, in its experience, other smaller companies have been able to provide their employee lists to ballot agents within a lesser timeframe, and the Applicant has previously incorporated in numerous protected action ballot orders four (4) working days or fewer, for the employer and union to provide the employee list to the ballot agent. The Applicant pressed that this has not led to any disputation, litigation or safety issues for the Applicant’s members or any other worker.
The Applicant contended that part of the process for taking industrial action is the making of the application for taking the protected industrial action. This, said the Applicant, is one of the Applicant’s bargaining tools to bring the Respondent to the bargaining table. The Applicant therefore argued that there is no requirement for the Commission to consider if a respondent employer may suffer inconvenience as a result of protected industrial action as, ‘[g]enerally, the reason for industrial action is to cause a degree of inconvenience and expense to the employer as legitimate bargaining tool’.[18]
4.2 Unreasonable timeframe for voting
The Applicant submitted that if the Commission was to extend the time from 5 working days to 15 working days for the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes, this would be inconsistent with s 443(3A) of the Act.
The Applicant submitted that its members who are eligible to be on the roll of voters have endorsed the use of electronic balloting as the preferred voting method and are happy and comfortable with the ballot to be conducted this way.[19]
The Applicant noted it had amended the draft order (proposed amended draft order) to include SMS voting so any employees on leave or who cannot be contacted by email will have quicker and easier access to the ballot voting, and an easier way of returning their votes. This would resolve any rostering concerns the Respondent may have, as SMS voting is reachable to employees who are not rostered on at work or on leave.
In respect to the Respondent’s concerns regarding difficulties in obtaining the personal email addresses or personal phone number of its employees, the Applicant submitted that it did not confront the same difficulty. On that basis, it submitted that there will not be a potential proportion of employees who will need to be contacted at their postal address, as the Applicant could furnish email addresses and phone numbers of the Respondent’s employees to the ballot agent.
The Applicant acknowledged that at clause 8.1.3 of the proposed amended draft order, the list of information the employer is to provide the ballot agent for each employee who would be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement, is only information that is known by the employer about the employees. The Applicant therefore pressed that if the Respondent prefers, the list of information that it could be required to provide to the ballot agent could be the Employee ID, Surname, First Name, and Date of Birth only. At the hearing, the Applicant appeared to reduce the requirements of the Respondent’s list of employees further, referring to only First Name, Middle Name and Surname.
Consideration
It is observed that the Respondent seeks 15 working days regarding the timeframe for the vote. According to the Respondent, the Applicant initially proposed a voting period of four working days but following conferral between the parties, the Applicant’s proposal became five working days as the voting period.
In respect of compiling a list of employees, the Respondent seeks eight working days notwithstanding the Applicant having advanced, by way of compromise, four.
It appears uncontroversial that within four working days after the Respondent and Applicant have provided the list of eligible employees to the ballot agent, the ballot is to commence.
However, on filing its materials in reply to the Respondent’s objections, the Applicant had revised the timeframe for the voting period and in which in the employee list was to be provided. The Applicant now submits that the Respondent’s employee list is to be given to the ballot agent from the issue of the order within two working days, the commencement of the vote from receiving the list would remain the same of four working days, and the vote is now to be open for three working days instead of five.
The Applicant candidly disclosed that the impetus for its further change to the draft order (i.e., the proposed amended draft order) was that the ballot agent would be closed between the period of 23 December 2022 to 9 January 2023. It therefore sought that the voting times be amended so that the declaration of results could be issued before 12:00PM on 23 December 2022. It argued to the effect that a failure to accommodate the new proposed timetable would delay its members’ rights to partake in protected industrial action and would therefore be detrimental to its members.
I am required to give the protected action ballot agent written directions in relation to a number of matters relating to the protected action ballot, including the voting method(s) to be used, in addition to the development of a timetable, the compilation of the roll of voters and any other matter I consider appropriate.
In support of its application, the Applicant provided a proposed amended draft order. The proposed amended draft order provided the following in respect of the provision of an employer list of eligible employees:
8. EMPLOYER TO PROVIDE LIST OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES
8.1 The Employer is to provide to the Agent ([email protected]) by 4:00pm on the fourth working day after the day the Order is issued, a list of its employees (as at the date of the Order), being a list that includes all of the employees who would be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement, in the following format:
8.1.1 The list is to be provided in the form of a Microsoft Excel compatible spreadsheet in a file named “Alcoa of Australia Limited – Employee List”.
8.1.2 The list is to be in alphabetical order of surname.
8.1.3 The list is to contain the information (if known) for each employee who would be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement as indicated by those column names set out below:
| Column 1 | Employee ID |
| Column 2 | Surname |
| Column 3 | First Name |
| Column 4 | Middle Name |
| Column 5 | Date of Birth |
| Column 6 | Work Email Address |
| Column 7 | Private Email Address |
| Column 8 | Mobile Phone Number |
| Column 9 | Postal – Address 1 |
| Column 10 | Postal – Address 2 |
| Column 11 | Postal - State |
| Column 12 | Postal - Postcode |
8.1.4 The list must be accompanied by a declaration in accordance with reg 3.15 of the Regulations.
8.1.5 The Employer may provide the list of employees to the Agent by way of encrypted or password protected email that is accessible by the Agent.
Understandably, the Respondent’s objections were premised on the proposed amended draft order.
The proposed amended draft order provides at clause 8.1.4 that the list of eligible employees ‘must be accompanied by a declaration in accordance with reg 3.15 of the Regulations’. The regulation referred to is that provided in the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) and sets out:
3.15 Compilation of roll of voters
(1) For section 452 and paragraph 469(b) of the Act, this regulation applies if:
(a) an applicant for a protected action ballot order; or
(b) the employer of an employee who is to be balloted;
provides information under subsection 450(4) or 452(3) of the Act.
(2) The applicant or employer must include with the information a declaration in writing that the applicant or employer reasonably believes that the information is complete, up-to-date and accurate. (bold my emphasis)
The Commission is of course obliged to specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.[20] This obligation must, in my view, be weighed against the necessity of ensuring that the ballot agent is provided with the requisite information that would allow it to provide to the eligible employees the ballot-related notice, information or other material. The veracity of that information is self-evidently important. Regulation 3.15, as referred to in the proposed amended draft order, requires the provision of a declaration in writing that the applicant or employer reasonably believes that the information is complete, up-to-date and accurate. In this case, the proposed amended draft order requires the Respondent to complete such a declaration and there was no suggestion from the Applicant that such a requirement be omitted.
The proposed amended draft order provides that the ballot-related notice, information or other material is to be provided by sending it to eligible employees’ work email addresses, personal email addresses or other email addresses, in accordance with clause 12.1 of the proposed amended draft order. Further, for those eligible employees without an email address, the ballot agent is to be positioned to send the notice to those employees’ postal addresses in accordance with clause 12.2 of the proposed amended draft order.
There was little evidence before me suggestive of when eligible employees’ contact details, including email addresses, postal addresses, and mobile phone numbers, were last updated by the Respondent. Mr Gleeson gave evidence that prior to a vote being conducted, the Respondent conducted toolbox talks and provided notices on noticeboards that there was a ballot coming and for employees to ensure their contact information was accurate and up-to-date. There was no evidence before me to contradict Mr Gleeson in this respect or to suggest that the Respondent would not adopt this approach with respect to the impending ballot (the subject of this application).
I appreciate the Applicant’s submissions in response to the Respondent’s argument about the resourcing constraints in its Department. In the circumstances, I am not convinced that these constraints warrant extending the period in which the Respondent is to provide its list of employees to the ballot agent. However, within the current context, I do consider that the pressing issue is ensuring that the ballot agent receives accurate and up-to-date contact information regarding eligible employees. This, in part, ensures that all eligible employees have access to a process designed to achieve democratic outcomes. In my view, the veracity of that information provided to the ballot agent is contemplated by the proposed amended draft order including the terms as already provided by the Applicant in clauses 8 and 9, with the exception that in respect of compiling a list of employees, the Respondent will be provided with seven working days. I consider this to be an appropriate period in the circumstances, such that it will provide the eligible employees with the opportunity to provide up-to-date contact details to the Respondent, inclusive of email addresses and mobile phone numbers, should they choose.
Turning to the issue of the voting period, the Respondent appeared to be focused on the necessity of providing sufficient time in which postal votes can be conducted. It appeared to be under the impression that the ballot itself, in its current form (the proposed amended draft order), made allowance for postal votes. However, the proposed amended draft order provides for electronic voting albeit that clause 12.2 of the proposed amended draft order provides:
For any eligible employees without an email address, the Agent will send the notice to employees by mail to that employee’s home postal address.
It does not appear from the terms of the proposed amended draft order that postal votes are recognised as being necessary in certain circumstances. It is, however, evident from the terms of the proposed amended draft order that the ballot agent will send the notice and instruction sheet to employees by mail to a particular employee’s home postal address in certain circumstances.
Notwithstanding the Respondent pressed that there would likely be a need for many employees to engage in a postal voting arrangement and that the time that the Applicant allocated for that voting arrangement is simply inadequate. Based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that this is the case. The voting method provided in the proposed amended draft order is by electronic means. In the absence of probative evidence suggestive that eligible employees would be unable to access an electronic ballot, which would seem unusual given it appears that the Respondent has conducted electronic ballots with respect to voting for the approval of enterprise agreement(s) within its business, I am inclined to land on a voting period of five working days, as was agreed upon by the parties prior to the Applicant’s latest revision to the proposed amended draft order. I consider a period of five working days a sufficient timeframe in which eligible employees can cast a vote. With regard to arriving at this period, I have considered that the timeframe will likely fall over a period of public holidays and that some employees may be on leave, but nevertheless appreciate that the Respondent operates on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week, basis.
Finally, I note the following. The parties appear to be in agreement that with respect to the proposed amended draft order, where working days are referred to, such days would not include Saturdays, Sundays, and public holidays.[21] The Order issued proceeds on that basis.
Further, I am cognisant that the Applicant purports that the ballot agent closes down for a period from 23 December 2022 until 9 January 2023. However, it is of course important for the ballot agent to appreciate its obligation to conduct protected action ballots expeditiously in accordance with s 449(2) of the Act.
Notwithstanding, I have provided that the ballot agent will commence the ballot no later than three working days after being provided lists from the Respondent and the Applicant. This, therefore, ensures that it is feasible for the ballot agent to commence the ballot whilst it is not closed, in addition to providing the requisite information as provided by clause 12 of the Order. In specifying such date, I have considered that it will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.[22]
Clause 14.2 requires the ballot agent to report the results of the protected action ballot as soon as practicable after it has closed – to the Commission, Applicant and Respondent. Arguably, the phrase ‘as soon as practicable’ may accommodate a period where the ballot agent is unable to report the ballot results immediately after the closure of the ballot, because it, meaning the ballot agent, is closed in that period. However, I again note protected action ballots are to be conducted expeditiously.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, a protected action ballot order [PR748714] will be issued concurrently with this decision, together with directions to the protected action ballot agent pursuant to s 450 of the Act.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Ms V Rabeling for the Applicant.
Mr R Wade for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2022.
Perth (by video):
9 December.
[1] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) 449(1).
[2] Witness Statement of Matthew Gleeson, [9] (Gleeson Statement).
[3] Ibid [11].
[4] Ibid [12].
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid [13].
[7] Ibid [13(b)].
[8] Ibid [13(c)].
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid [13(d)].
[11] Ibid [13(e)].
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid [13(f)].
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid [13(g)].
[17] Ibid.
[18] Alcoa of Australia Ltd v Australian Workers’ Union (2010) 196 IR 103, 109 [35].
[19] Witness Statement of Simon Rushworth, [3].
[20] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 443(3A).
[21] Applicant’s submissions dated 9 December 2022 [2(c)].
[22] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 443(3A).
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR748713>
0
1
0