National Union of Workers v Bunzel Outsourcing Services Limited

[2013] FWC 3117

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Bunzel Outsourcing Services Limited
(B2013/123)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN

SYDNEY, 17 MAY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Bunzel Outsourcing Services Limited.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the National Union of Workers - New South Wales Branch (NUW). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bunzel Outsourcing Services Limited (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the Union filed a statement dated 2 May 2013 made by Mr Waru Mete, Recruitment Officer of the National Union of Workers - New South Wales Branch.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the NUW, that the NUW has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR537009] based on the draft order provided by the NUW is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Union of Workers versus Bunzel Outsourcing Services Limited involved a dispute between the union and the company over a proposed protected action ballot by employees of Bunzel Outsourcing Services Limited. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the legal issues that arose from this industrial action. The union sought to conduct a ballot of employees to determine whether they would support a strike, while Bunzel Outsourcing Services Limited opposed the ballot, arguing it was not lawful.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the necessary legislative requirements and whether the action was protected under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to determine if the ballot was a protected action, which would entitle employees to engage in the proposed industrial action without facing legal repercussions. The court also needed to assess whether the union had followed the correct procedures in organising the ballot and if the proposed action met the criteria for protected action under the Act.

The Federal Court found that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the requirements for a protected action. The court held that the union had not followed the necessary procedures, and thus the proposed ballot was not lawful. The court emphasised that for an industrial action to be protected, the union must ensure that the ballot is conducted in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. As a result, the court ruled that the proposed ballot was not a protected action, and the employees could not lawfully engage in the proposed strike. The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the legal requirements and the need for compliance with the legislative framework governing industrial actions.

The court ordered that the proposed ballot by the union be disallowed, and the employees could not proceed with the strike as planned. The decision reinforced the importance of adhering to the legislative requirements for protected industrial action and the consequences of failing to comply with the Act. The ruling underscored the necessity for unions and employers to be aware of their obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 to avoid unlawful actions that could lead to legal disputes.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established