DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Coregas Pty Ltd
(B2017/1113)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 NOVEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Coregas Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by 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 Coregas Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 21 November 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 PR597922.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Coregas Pty Ltd. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to facilitate industrial action, while Coregas contended that the ballot was unlawful and should be prohibited. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the union's proposed ballot and the scope of the employer's rights in this context.

The court considered whether the union had the legal right to conduct the ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and if the employer had sufficient grounds to challenge the ballot. Key issues included whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements for conducting a ballot and whether the employer could establish that the proposed action would result in detriment to its business. The court examined the balance between the union's rights to organise and the employer's rights to manage their business.

The court held that the union had not satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. The union had failed to provide Coregas with the necessary information to assess the potential impact of the proposed action. Consequently, the court found in favour of Coregas, prohibiting the union from proceeding with the ballot. The decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance in union activities and the need for employers to be provided with sufficient information to assess the potential impact of proposed industrial action.

Coregas was granted an injunction preventing the union from conducting the ballot and the union was ordered to pay Coregas's costs of the proceeding. The court's decision reinforced the necessity for unions to adhere to statutory requirements when organising industrial action and highlighted the employer's entitlement to be informed about potential disruptions to their business operations.

National Union of Workers v Coregas 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