DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Catalent Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/558)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 5 JULY 2017

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

[2] On 5 July 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 Mr C Bechaz 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 PR594260.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Union of Workers v Catalent Australia Pty Ltd was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute involved a proposed protected action ballot by employees of Catalent Australia Pty Ltd, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. The union sought to conduct the ballot to determine if the employees were in favour of taking protected industrial action.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the ballot notice provided to the employees was adequate and if the union had followed the correct procedures in calling for the ballot. The employer argued that the ballot notice was misleading and did not sufficiently inform the employees about the implications of the proposed industrial action.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had failed to provide a ballot notice that was clear and understandable to the employees. The notice did not adequately explain the potential consequences of the proposed industrial action, including the impact on the business operations and the employees' employment. Consequently, the Commission determined that the ballot notice did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. As a result, the Commission did not approve the ballot, preventing the union from proceeding with the proposed industrial action.

The Commission's decision was based on the necessity for ballot notices to be clear, concise, and informative, ensuring that employees are fully aware of the potential consequences of their decision to participate in industrial action. By not meeting these requirements, the union's ballot did not comply with the statutory provisions, leading to its rejection by the Commission.

National Union of Workers v Catalent Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established