National Union of Workers v Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs

Case [2016] FWC 4131


[2016] FWC 4131
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers
v
Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs
(B2016/648)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 23 JUNE 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot order by members of the National Union of Workers (NUW) employed by Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs (the employer). The application is made pursuant to Section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The applicant seeks to ballot employees of the employer who are members of the NUW and who would be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement.

[3] In considering this matter I must apply Section 443 of the Act which provides:

    443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

      (1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

        (a) an application has been made under section 437; and

        (b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

      (2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

      (3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

        (a) the name of each applicant for the order;

        (b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

        (c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

        (d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

      (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.

      (4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

        (a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

        (b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

      (5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

      Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[4] To begin, I am satisfied that the Application has been made in accordance with Section 437 of the Act. I am satisfied that the Application was not made earlier than 30 days prior to the nominal expiry date of the current agreement, Coolibah Herbs Certified Agreement (2005), as required by Section 438 of the Act. I am satisfied that the employer received the Application as required by Section 440 of the Act. I received advice from Mr Ian Rickards, Supply & Logistics Manager for the employer that the employer did not oppose the application. I therefore decided to deal with the Application on the papers.

[5] The next matter to which attention must be given is whether or not the applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer on behalf of the employees who are to be balloted. The NUW provided submissions in their application that satisfies me this is the case.

[6] I am satisfied that the proposed order meets the requirements of Section 443 of the Act. The questions adequately specify the nature of the proposed industrial action and meet the requirements of Section 443(3)(d). The draft order therefore adequately describes the group of employees to be balloted as required by Section 443(3)(b). The AEC will be the ballot agent.

[7] Having decided that Section 443(1)(a) and (b) have been complied with, I must make a protected action ballot order, as sought by the NUW.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR581997>

Details
AGLC
National Union of Workers v Bogicevic Family Trust T/A Coolibah Herbs [2016] FWC 4131
Case
[2016] FWC 4131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the dispute were the National Union of Workers and the Bogicevic Family Trust, trading as Coolibah Herbs. The conflict arose from the Trust's decision to conduct a ballot among its employees regarding potential industrial action, which the Union contested on the grounds that the ballot did not comply with the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter. The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the Trust's ballot process was in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act, particularly concerning the adequacy of the information provided to employees and the process by which the ballot was conducted.

The Commission examined the specific provisions of the Fair Work Act and determined that the Trust had failed to provide employees with sufficient information to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot. Additionally, the Commission found that the process for conducting the ballot was not transparent and did not allow for adequate employee input. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot did not meet the legal standards required by the Fair Work Act. As a result, the proposed ballot was declared invalid, and the Trust was directed to conduct a new ballot in compliance with the legislative requirements.

The Fair Work Commission's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees have access to all necessary information and that the ballot process is conducted fairly and transparently. The Trust was ordered to immediately cease the proposed ballot and to initiate a new process that adhered to the provisions of the Fair Work Act. This ruling underscores the necessity for employers to comply with statutory requirements when organising ballots for potential industrial action to ensure that employee rights are protected and upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.