DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
(B2015/1674)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 7 DECEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[1] The National Union of Workers (NUW) is a bargaining representative of some employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (Robert Bosch). These employees will be covered by a proposed agreement that is currently the subject of bargaining between the NUW and Robert Bosch. These employees are currently covered by the Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2013. The nominal expiry date of the agreement is 31 December 2015.

[2] Robert Bosch did not oppose the application with both parties agreeing for the ballot to be conducted by way of a postal vote.

[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 Adam Portelli of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s. 443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR574786.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers sought a declaration from the Fair Work Commission that a proposed ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd. for protected action was lawful. The dispute arose out of a breakdown in negotiations between the union and the employer over a new enterprise agreement. The Fair Work Commission was the court in this matter.

The legal issues that the Fair Work Commission had to decide related to whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the commission had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the requirements for timing, notice, and content of a protected action ballot, as well as whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements for protected action.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The commission found that the union had not given the required 21 days' notice of the ballot, and that the ballot papers did not contain the required information. The commission also found that the union had not complied with the procedural requirements for protected action, as it had not provided the employer with a copy of the proposed ballot papers and a statement of the reasons for the proposed action. The commission concluded that the proposed ballot was therefore not lawful.

The Fair Work Commission refused the union's application for a declaration that the proposed ballot was lawful. The commission's decision was based on its finding that the union had not complied with the legal requirements for a protected action ballot. The union's application was dismissed in its entirety.

National Union of Workers

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established