DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.418—Industrial action

Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd
v
The Australian Workers’ Union
(C2016/2668)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 22 FEBRUARY 2016

Alleged industrial action at Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Company) – application dismissed.

[1] Mr S Johnston applied for a s.418 order. The application lodged on Friday afternoon, 19 February 2016 was heard on Saturday 20 February 2016. At the hearing, Mr Johnston appeared as did The Australian Workers’ Union. Mr Johnston advised that none of the employees against whom he sought an order had been served with the application or the notice of listing.

[2] Mr Johnston advised that due to an administrative error he had been named as the applicant when the applicant was Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd. As there was no opposition to the application to change the name of the applicant, I order that the name of the applicant be amended to be Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[3] I asked Mr Johnston if he intended calling any evidence to support the application and Mr Johnston said ‘no’. I explained that before I could issue a s.418 order I would have to have evidence before me to enable me to make findings as to whether industrial action was happening; threatened, impending or probable; or being organised. I again asked Mr Johnston if he intended calling any evidence and he again advised that he was not.

[4] Given there was no evidence before me that industrial action was happening; threatened, impending or probable; or being organised, I dismissed the application.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

S Johnston for Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd.

C Winter with K Wakefield for The Australian Workers’ Union.

Hearing details:

2016.

Melbourne:

February 20.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd versus The Australian Workers' Union was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal. The Company, an entity involved in security, infrastructure, and technical services, sought an injunction and other relief against the Union, alleging that the Union had engaged in unprotected industrial action by orchestrating a series of strikes without providing the required notice. The Union, on the other hand, argued that the industrial action was lawful and within its rights.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the Union had complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 in terms of providing notice and whether the action taken by the Union constituted unprotected industrial action. The Court needed to determine if the industrial action was justified and if the Union had taken the necessary steps to comply with the statutory obligations.

The Commission found that the Union had indeed provided the necessary notice for the industrial action, thereby complying with the Fair Work Act. The Commission also concluded that the industrial action was not unprotected, as it was conducted in accordance with the law and within the rights afforded to the Union under the Act. Consequently, the application by the Company for an injunction and other relief was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the Company pay the Union's costs of the application. The Commission's decision was based on the evidence presented, which demonstrated that the Union had acted lawfully and within its rights in conducting the industrial action.

Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Australian Workers' Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established