Maritime Union of Australia, The v DP World Sydney Limited

[2014] FWC 5080

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Maritime Union of Australia, The
v
DP World Sydney Limited
(B2014/1014)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOOTH

SYDNEY, 28 JULY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of DP World Sydney Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the “The Maritime Union of Australia” (MUA) (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of DP World Sydney Limited (the Respondent).

[2] My associate was advised by Ms Jessica Blomfield, National Manager of Employee Relations for the Respondent, that the Respondent would not advance any opposition to an order being made.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the Applicant has been issued in conjunction with the decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Maritime Union of Australia took DP World Sydney Limited to the Fair Work Commission to challenge the employer's proposed industrial action ballot. The union argued that the ballot was invalid and sought to prevent its implementation. The Commission had to determine whether the union's objections to the ballot were justified and whether the employer's proposed ballot complied with the relevant industrial laws.

The key issue before the Commission was whether the employer's proposed ballot met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically in terms of the notice period and the disclosure of information. The union contended that the employer had failed to provide adequate notice to employees and had not disclosed all relevant information required under the Act. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the ballot was properly conducted and that the union's objections were without merit.

The Commission found that the employer's ballot did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The notice period provided to employees was insufficient, and the employer had failed to disclose certain information that was relevant to the ballot. The Commission held that these deficiencies rendered the ballot invalid. Consequently, the Commission prohibited the employer from proceeding with the proposed ballot and ordered the employer to take steps to remedy the deficiencies identified.

No final orders were made as the decision was an interlocutory one. The Commission directed the parties to attempt to reach an agreement on a revised ballot process that complied with the Act. If the parties were unable to agree, the matter was to be returned to the Commission for further determination.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established