DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
CHEP Australia Ltd
(B2019/705)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 27 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CHEP Australia Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CHEP Australia Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 26 August 2019, 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 Deeana Predic 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 PR711713.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers filed an application against Chep Australia Ltd, seeking authorisation for a protected action ballot of the company’s employees. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on whether the proposed ballot related to a “workplace matter” within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The primary concern was whether the proposed ballot related to an industrial dispute or involved a broader issue outside the scope of workplace relations.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot related to a genuine workplace matter as defined in section 387 of the Act. The Act allows for a protected action ballot if it relates to a workplace matter and is conducted in good faith. The Commission had to determine if the proposed ballot was genuinely related to a workplace matter, or if it extended beyond this scope to encompass issues outside the Act’s purview.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot related to a genuine workplace matter, as it was concerned with issues directly impacting the employees’ terms and conditions of employment. The proposed ballot sought to address concerns about pay and conditions, which are quintessential workplace matters. The Commission also noted that the ballot was conducted in good faith, as it aimed to facilitate collective bargaining and improve working conditions. Accordingly, the Commission authorised the proposed ballot, finding it complied with the requirements of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission granted the application, authorising the proposed ballot. The decision confirmed that the proposed ballot related to a genuine workplace matter and was conducted in good faith, thereby satisfying the criteria under the Fair Work Act. The Commission’s decision reinforced the importance of protecting the rights of employees to engage in collective bargaining processes.

National Union of Workers v Chep 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