National Union of Workers v DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 2618

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2013/803)

JUSTICE BOULTON, SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

SYDNEY, 30 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) by the National Union of Workers (NUW). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Company). The application is opposed by the Company.

[2] On 29 April 2013, I heard submissions from both the Company and the NUW on the application and matters relevant to the requirements of s.443 of the FW Act. I have also considered the material filed with the Fair Work Commission by the NUW.

[3] I am satisfied that the each of the relevant requirements of the FW Act, and in particular s.443 have been met. I am satisfied that the NUW have made an application pursuant to s.437 and that the NUW has been, and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Company which is the employer of the employees to be balloted. Accordingly, an order will be made.

[4] An order [PR536109] based on the draft order provided by the NUW is issued in conjunction with this decision.

[5] The parties are encouraged to continue with their negotiations and discussions with a view to concluding the negotiations in an amicable way and without the need for taking industrial action.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

D Mujkic for the National Union of Workers.

L Brooks for DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd.

Hearing details:

2013.

Sydney, 29 April.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers initiated proceedings against DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of DHL, a dispute that revolved around the procedural fairness and validity of the ballot notice issued by the company. The union argued that the company had failed to comply with the required procedural steps, necessitating the court's intervention to ensure the employees' rights were protected.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the company had complied with the necessary procedural steps to conduct a lawful protected action ballot. The union contended that the ballot notice issued by DHL was inadequate and did not provide sufficient information to the employees, thereby infringing on their rights. The company, on the other hand, argued that it had followed all requisite procedures and that the ballot notice was both adequate and lawful.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the provisions of the relevant industrial relations legislation and case law concerning the conduct of protected action ballots. It found that the ballot notice issued by DHL did not meet the statutory requirements as it failed to provide employees with adequate information about the proposed industrial action. The court held that the notice was insufficient and did not allow employees to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union, finding that the company's ballot notice was invalid and that a new ballot must be conducted in accordance with the law.

The court ordered that DHL must issue a new ballot notice to its employees, ensuring that it complies with all procedural requirements under the industrial relations legislation. The union's application was thus successful, and the company was directed to take the necessary steps to conduct a lawful and valid protected action ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established