DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Entapack Pty. Ltd.
(B2017/1018)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 30 OCTOBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Entapack Pty. 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 Entapack Pty. Ltd. (Respondent).

[2] On 30 October 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 Calvert 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 PR597239.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Union of Workers v Entapack Pty. Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the National Union of Workers sought authorisation for a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Entapack Pty. Ltd. The dispute centred on the procedural fairness and the right of the employees to organise and take collective action in the pursuit of their workplace rights.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union had appropriately followed the necessary procedures to conduct a protected action ballot and whether the employer had engaged in any actions that could be considered unfair labour practices. The Commission had to determine if the union's actions were in accordance with the Fair Work Act and whether the employer's conduct warranted any intervention.

The Commission found that the union had not followed the correct procedures in its attempt to organise a ballot, and as a result, the proposed ballot could not proceed. Furthermore, the Commission ruled that the employer had not engaged in any unfair labour practices that would warrant intervention. The Commission emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in union activities and highlighted the need for unions to adhere strictly to the legal framework governing industrial action.

As a result of these findings, the Commission did not grant the union's application for authorisation of the proposed ballot. The decision underscores the critical importance of procedural adherence in union activities and the employer's right to operate without interference, provided no unfair labour practices are involved.

National Union of Workers v Entapack 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