Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers Union & Ors

Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd (Electrolux) sought judicial review of a decision by the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and its officials to conduct a protected industrial action, specifically a work-to-rule campaign. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of this industrial action under the *Workplace Relations Act 1999* (Cth) (the Act). The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the AWU's work-to-rule campaign constituted a "stop work" or "stoppage of work" within the meaning of s 170MW(2)(a) of the Act. This provision stipulated that a person must not organise or take industrial action that involves a "stop work" or "stoppage of work" unless it is a "protected action". Electrolux contended that the work-to-rule campaign, by its nature, involved a stoppage of work and was therefore unlawful if not protected.

The High Court, in a joint judgment by Gleeson CJ and Hayne J, held that a work-to-rule campaign does not, in itself, constitute a "stop work" or "stoppage of work" for the purposes of s 170MW(2)(a) of the Act. Their Honours reasoned that the phrase "stop work" or "stoppage of work" implies a complete cessation of work. A work-to-rule campaign, on the other hand, involves employees performing their duties strictly in accordance with the terms of their award or agreement, which may result in a reduction in output or efficiency but does not amount to a complete cessation of work. The Court distinguished this from situations where employees deliberately cease performing their duties.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed Electrolux's application for judicial review, finding that the AWU's work-to-rule campaign was not prohibited by s 170MW(2)(a) of the Act.