Linfox Australia Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers

[2014] FWC 529

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.425 - Application to suspend protected industrial action, cooling off

Linfox Australia Pty Ltd
v
National Union of Workers
(B2014/443)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 3 FEBRUARY 2014

s.425 application for an order that protected industrial action by employees be suspended - cooling off - Correction.

[1] The Decision [[2014] FWC 529] issued by the Fair Work Commission on 21 January 2014 is corrected as follows:

A. By changing the references in paragraphs [23] and [24] from Section 225 to Section 425.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Linfox Australia Pty Ltd applied for an order that protected industrial action by employees of the National Union of Workers be suspended, with the application being made under section 425 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Federal Court heard the application, which was made as a matter of urgency. The Union opposed the application, arguing that the action was lawful and that the company had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant the suspension of the protected action. The court was required to decide whether the protected action was unlawful and whether the company's application should be granted.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and found that the Union's protected action was lawful. The court noted that the Union had provided evidence that the employees were engaged in lawful protected action, and that the company had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the action was unlawful. The court also noted that the company had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the action was causing significant economic harm, which was a requirement for the court to grant the application. The court found that the application should be dismissed and that the protected action should continue.

The court noted that the application was made as a matter of urgency and that the court had the power to make an order for a cooling-off period. The court found that a cooling-off period was not necessary in this case, as the protected action was lawful and the company had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant the suspension of the action. The court dismissed the application and noted that the protected action could continue. The court also noted that the Union had the right to engage in lawful protected action and that the company should not interfere with that right.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established