DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Airstep Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/675)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Airstep Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Airstep Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 20 August 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[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 Ms Deeana Predic of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR711524.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers commenced proceedings against Airstep Australia Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to hold a protected action ballot of Airstep employees to garner support for potential industrial action. Airstep contested the union's right to conduct the ballot, arguing that the union had failed to provide requisite information and that the ballot was not genuinely in pursuit of a genuine industrial dispute. The Commission was required to determine the validity of the union's ballot and Airstep's objections.

The Commission examined the union's compliance with procedural requirements for conducting a protected action ballot, including the provision of information to employees and the existence of a genuine industrial dispute. The Commission also considered the nature and scope of the proposed industrial action and whether the ballot was reasonably related to the pursuit of the union's objectives. The central issue was whether the union had satisfied the statutory prerequisites for holding the ballot and whether Airstep's objections were valid.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had adequately provided the required information to employees and that the ballot was genuinely in pursuit of a bona fide industrial dispute. The Commission rejected Airstep's objections, concluding that the union had complied with all necessary procedural requirements. The union's proposed industrial action was deemed to be reasonably related to the pursuit of its objectives, and the Commission upheld the union's right to conduct the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union could proceed with the protected action ballot of Airstep employees. The Commission emphasised the importance of procedural compliance and the need for unions to provide employees with sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding potential industrial action. The decision reinforced the rights of unions to organise and engage in protected action, subject to meeting statutory requirements.

National Union of Workers v Airstep Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established