DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Bridgestone Australia Ltd
(B2017/923)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2017

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 9 October 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 Ms A Thwaites 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 PR596653.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the National Union of Workers sought to enforce a proposed industrial action ballot of employees of Bridgestone Australia Ltd. The union aimed to conduct the ballot to determine employee support for potential strike action. Bridgestone opposed the ballot, arguing it was not protected under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was required to determine whether the proposed ballot complied with the legislative requirements and if the union's actions were justified.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Fair Work Act, which sets out the processes for protected industrial action. Key issues included whether the union had correctly followed the notice requirements, the timing of the ballot, and whether the proposed action was related to a dispute of interest. Bridgestone argued that the ballot was not adequately linked to an existing dispute of interest, while the union contended that the proposed action was a legitimate response to ongoing issues with the employer.

The court found that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The union had failed to demonstrate a sufficient connection between the proposed action and an existing dispute of interest. The court also noted procedural deficiencies in the notice provided by the union. As a result, the court ruled that the proposed ballot was not protected and could not proceed. This decision reinforced the importance of adhering to the legislative requirements for protected industrial action.

The court ordered that the union's proposed ballot could not proceed as it did not meet the criteria for protected action under the Fair Work Act. The decision emphasised the need for unions to carefully follow the statutory requirements and ensure that any proposed industrial action is adequately linked to an existing dispute of interest. The ruling served as a reminder to both unions and employers of the importance of compliance with industrial action laws.

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