Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union

Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd (Electrolux) sought judicial review of a decision by the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) to conduct a ballot for industrial action. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of s 45 of the *Workplace Relations Act 1996* (Cth), which governs the circumstances under which a ballot for industrial action can be conducted. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the AWU's proposed ballot for industrial action was validly initiated under s 45 of the *Workplace Relations Act 1996* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the ballot was being conducted in relation to a dispute that had been referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) for conciliation or arbitration, as required by the legislation.

The High Court considered the nature of the dispute and the steps taken by the AWU. It was held that for a ballot for industrial action to be valid under s 45, the dispute must have been formally referred to the AIRC. The court found that the AWU had not satisfied this prerequisite, as the dispute had not been properly brought before the AIRC in accordance with the Act. The court emphasised that the legislative framework for industrial action requires a clear process to be followed, including the referral of disputes to the relevant industrial tribunal, before industrial action can be lawfully organised.

The High Court made orders quashing the decision of the AWU to conduct the ballot.