DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Armstrong Flooring Pty Ltd
(B2019/676)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Armstrong Flooring 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 Armstrong Flooring 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 PR711493.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the National Union of Workers and Armstrong Flooring Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on a proposed protected action ballot, which was intended to be conducted by the union among the employees of Armstrong Flooring. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the union had the right to conduct a protected action ballot without the consent of Armstrong Flooring, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was tasked with interpreting the provisions of the Act concerning the notification requirements for protected action ballots. It had to determine whether the union's actions were compliant with these provisions and, if not, what the consequences might be for the union's right to proceed with the ballot.

The Federal Court examined the specific sections of the Fair Work Act that govern protected action ballots. It concluded that the union had not complied with the necessary notification requirements, which include providing detailed information to the employer about the proposed action. The court found that the union's ballot notice was insufficient as it did not contain all the required details. Consequently, the court ruled that the union could not lawfully proceed with the ballot without the employer's consent, which had not been obtained.

The court ordered that the union must cease any efforts to conduct the ballot without the employer's consent. It also directed that the union must provide Armstrong Flooring with a ballot notice that complies with the statutory requirements before any further action can be taken. This decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act when it comes to protected industrial action.

National Union of Workers v Armstrong Flooring 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