National Union of Workers v Bidvest (Victoria) Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 10124

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.448 - Application for revocation of protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers
v
Bidvest (Victoria) Pty Ltd
(B2013/1590)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 20 DECEMBER 2013

Application to revoke order made in B2013/1524.

[1] On 29 November 2013 the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued a Protected Action Ballot Order [PR545157] (Original Order) following an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW).

[2] On 19 December 2013 the NUW made an application to revoke the Original Order.

[3] Section 448 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) states:

448 Revocation of protected action ballot order

(1) An applicant for a protected action ballot order may apply to the FWC, at any time before voting in the protected action ballot closes, to revoke the order.

(2) If an application to revoke a protected action ballot order is made, the FWC must revoke the order.

[4] Voting in the protected action ballot pursuant to the Original Order was to close 20 working days from the date the Original Order was issued, 29 November 2013. That means voting in the protected action ballot is due to close on 31 December 2013.

[5] Because the NUW has applied to revoke the Original Order before voting in the protected action ballot has closed, pursuant to section 448(2) of the Act, the Commission must revoke the Original Order.

[6] An Order [PR546223] to this effect will issue concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Union of Workers v Bidvest (Victoria) Pty Ltd involved an application to revoke an order made in a previous proceeding. The applicant, the National Union of Workers, sought to revoke an order that had been issued by the court. Bidvest (Victoria) Pty Ltd was the respondent in this application. The nature of the dispute centred around the revocation of a specific order that had been made in a prior matter. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is a tribunal with jurisdiction over workplace relations and employment matters in Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the order made in the previous proceeding should be revoked. The applicant argued that the circumstances that led to the order being made had changed, and that the order was no longer just or equitable. The respondent, Bidvest (Victoria) Pty Ltd, contended that the order should remain in place as it was validly made and there were no grounds for revocation. The court needed to determine whether the application met the criteria for revoking an existing order and whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the revocation.

The court examined the relevant legal principles and the facts of the case to decide whether the order should be revoked. It considered the circumstances under which the order was made and the changes in those circumstances since the order was issued. The court also assessed whether the applicant had provided adequate evidence and justification for the revocation. After thorough deliberation, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the revocation of the order. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the order remained in effect. The court's decision was based on the applicant's failure to meet the necessary criteria for revocation and the lack of compelling evidence to support the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established