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
Nufarm Australia Limited
(B2017/461)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 6 JUNE 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nufarm Australia Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (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 Nufarm Australia Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 6 June 2017 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 Glover 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 PR593507.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia sought an order against Nufarm Australia Limited, seeking to compel the company to allow a proposed protected action ballot of employees. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, a specialist workplace relations tribunal in Australia. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to facilitate potential industrial action by the employees.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed ballot was indeed protected action as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009, and if the company's refusal to allow the ballot was justified under the Act. The Commission had to examine the specific provisions of the Act that govern protected industrial action and the procedures that employers must follow when employees wish to conduct such action. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the employer's reasons for refusing the ballot were reasonable and lawful under the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the proposed ballot did constitute protected action under the Act, as it was a process integral to the employees' right to take industrial action. The Commission further found that the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was not justified, as it did not meet the criteria for lawful refusal under the Act. The employer had not provided sufficient evidence to support its decision, and the Commission concluded that the employer's actions were unreasonable. Consequently, the Commission ordered Nufarm Australia Limited to allow the proposed ballot to proceed, ensuring that the employees' rights to organise and take industrial action were upheld.

No additional orders were made beyond the requirement for the employer to facilitate the ballot. The Commission's decision was based on a careful examination of the statutory provisions and the employer's actions, ensuring that the rights of the employees were protected in accordance with the law.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Nufarm Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established