DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Bridgestone Australia Ltd
(B2015/1691)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 DECEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bridgestone Australia 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 Bridgestone Australia Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 8 December 2015 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 the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR574901.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are the National Union of Workers and Bridgestone Australia Ltd. The dispute arose from a proposed ballot of employees regarding protected action, which Bridgestone sought to prevent. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission (FWC), an Australian industrial relations tribunal. The union argued that the proposed ballot was a legitimate exercise of employee rights, while Bridgestone contended that the ballot was unlawful and sought an injunction to prevent it.

The legal issues before the FWC centred on the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements for protected industrial action and whether Bridgestone had the right to seek an injunction to prevent the ballot. Key issues included the definition of "protected action" under the Act and the circumstances in which an employer can seek to restrain such action.

The FWC found that the proposed ballot met the criteria for protected action as outlined in the Fair Work Act. The commission noted that the ballot was properly organised and aimed at determining whether employees wished to engage in protected action. The FWC also held that the employer's right to prevent the ballot was limited and could only be exercised under specific conditions. The commission concluded that the employer had not demonstrated that the ballot would cause significant harm that could not be mitigated by other means, thereby rejecting Bridgestone's application for an injunction.

As a result of the FWC's decision, the proposed ballot was allowed to proceed. The FWC emphasised the importance of allowing employees to organise and engage in protected action, subject to the conditions set out in the Fair Work Act. No further orders were made beyond the allowance of the ballot.

National Union of Workers v Bridgestone Australia Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established