DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers
v
Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
(B2017/329)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 APRIL 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

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

[2] On 26 April 2017 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 Mr S Roberts 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 PR592080.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of National Union of Workers v Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the National Union of Workers sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. The company opposed the ballot, arguing that the union did not have the necessary support to proceed. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the union had sufficient support from the employees to conduct a protected action ballot. The court had to determine the threshold required for a union to demonstrate majority support and whether the union had met this threshold. This involved examining the definition of "protected action" under the Fair Work Act 2009 and interpreting the relevant provisions to ascertain the requisite level of employee support.

The court examined the evidence presented by the union to demonstrate majority support. The company argued that the union had not met the statutory requirements, while the union contended that it had sufficient backing from the employees. The court found that the union had provided adequate evidence to show majority support and therefore had the right to conduct a protected action ballot. The court's decision hinged on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the statutory requirements for protected action. The court held that the union's evidence was sufficient to meet the legal criteria, and the proposed ballot could proceed.

The court's decision concluded with an order that the National Union of Workers was entitled to proceed with the protected action ballot as per the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The order was issued in favour of the union, allowing the ballot to take place. This ruling reinforced the importance of meeting the statutory requirements for employee support when conducting a protected action ballot.

National Union of Workers v Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established