DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
ePharmacy Group Pty Ltd
(B2019/74)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 1 FEBRUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ePharmacy Group Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 31 January 2019, the Respondent advised my associate that it did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] I have considered the application and the statutory declaration of Mr Mathew Toner, an official of the National Union of Workers, which sets out the steps taken by the Applicant to try to reach agreement with the Respondent.

[5] I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, that the Applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, and that the other requirements for the making of a protected action ballot order have been met.

[6] Accordingly, the Commission is required under s.443 of the Act to make a protected action ballot order.

[7] An Order has been separately issued in PR704457.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the National Union of Workers and ePharmacy Group Pty Ltd. The union sought to conduct a ballot for proposed protected industrial action by employees of ePharmacy Group. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an Australian labour tribunal.

The central legal issues revolved around the requirements for a valid ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements for conducting a ballot, including whether it had provided the necessary information to the employees and given the employer a reasonable opportunity to respond. Additionally, the court considered whether the proposed industrial action was lawful and protected under the Act.

The Fair Work Commission held that the union had not provided the required information to the employees, which was necessary to ensure informed consent. The Commission found that the ballot notice did not contain sufficient details about the proposed action, including the nature and duration of the action, and the potential impact on the employer and employees. As a result, the Commission ruled that the ballot was invalid and could not proceed. The employer's objection to the ballot was upheld, and the proposed industrial action could not go ahead.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union must not proceed with the ballot and that the employer was not required to facilitate the ballot. The Commission also noted that if the union wished to recommence the ballot process, it would need to comply with all procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.

National Union of Workers v ePharmacy Group 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