DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd
(B2016/787)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 JULY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bayer CropScience Pty 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 Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 14 July 2016 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 A 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 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 PR582814.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of National Union of Workers v Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd, the primary issue before the Fair Work Commission was the proposed industrial action to be undertaken by the employees of Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd. The National Union of Workers sought authorisation for a protected action ballot, which would allow employees to vote on potential strike action. Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd opposed this, arguing that the ballot was not appropriately aligned with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues revolved around whether the union's proposed ballot met the statutory criteria for protected action. The court had to consider whether the ballot's proposed date, manner, and the issues it sought to address were in compliance with the legislative framework. Specifically, the court examined whether the ballot was conducted in good faith and whether it was reasonably likely to result in the achievement of the employees' objectives.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the proposed ballot did not satisfy the legal requirements for protected action. The court found that the ballot was not in good faith as it was designed to pressure the employer into making concessions that were unrelated to the employees' core objectives. Additionally, the court held that the ballot was not reasonably likely to achieve the employees' objectives because it did not focus on the primary issues at hand. Consequently, the authorisation for the ballot was refused.

The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal standards. The final order was that the authorisation for the proposed ballot of employees of Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd be refused.

National Union of Workers v Bayer CropScience 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