DECISION

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

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd
(B2018/665)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 31 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 31 July 2018 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 B Currey of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, 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] An order has been separately issued in PR609591.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) and BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (BlueScope). The Union sought to conduct a ballot of its members employed by BlueScope to determine if they would engage in protected industrial action. BlueScope challenged the ballot on several grounds, including the union's failure to provide sufficient information and the ballot's potential to cause harm to BlueScope's business. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the Union had fulfilled its obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 to provide adequate information to its members before conducting the ballot, and whether the proposed ballot posed an unreasonable risk of harm to BlueScope's business. The court had to balance the union's right to organise and engage in protected action with the employer's rights to operate its business without undue interference.

The court found that the Union had not provided sufficient information to its members to enable an informed decision about participating in the proposed ballot. It was determined that the information provided was inadequate in several respects, including the potential impact of the proposed action on BlueScope's operations and the availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Additionally, the court concluded that the potential harm to BlueScope's business was significant enough to warrant intervention. Consequently, the court issued an injunction preventing the Union from proceeding with the ballot.

The court's decision was definitive, with the Union being restrained from conducting the ballot as proposed. The court emphasised the importance of unions providing comprehensive information to their members to ensure informed decision-making. It also highlighted the need to consider the potential impact of industrial action on the employer's business when assessing the reasonableness of such action.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v BlueScope Steel (AIS) 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