DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Fenner Dunlop Australia Pty Ltd
(B2016/346)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fenner Dunlop Australia Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 8 March 2016 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 S Allison of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR577792.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers initiated proceedings against Fenner Dunlop Australia Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The Union sought an order for the employer to allow its members, who were employees of Fenner Dunlop, to conduct a ballot on proposed protected industrial action. The Union argued that the employer had refused to facilitate this ballot, which was essential for the employees to take lawful industrial action.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the employer's refusal to allow the ballot constituted an unfair labour practice under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union contended that the employer's refusal was unreasonable and an interference with the employees' right to organise and engage in collective bargaining. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the ballot was not feasible due to operational constraints and could lead to disruptions that would harm the business.

The Commission considered the legal framework governing industrial action and the rights of employees to organise and engage in collective bargaining. It found that the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was unreasonable and an interference with the employees' rights. The Commission noted that the employer had not demonstrated any compelling reasons for its refusal and that the potential for disruption did not outweigh the employees' right to organise. Consequently, the Commission ordered Fenner Dunlop Australia Pty Ltd to allow the employees to conduct the ballot on the proposed protected action.

The Fair Work Commission ordered Fenner Dunlop Australia Pty Ltd to facilitate the ballot of its employees on the proposed protected industrial action. The employer was required to provide the necessary resources and support to ensure the ballot could be conducted effectively. The decision emphasised the importance of upholding the rights of employees to organise and engage in collective bargaining, while also recognising the need for employers to manage their businesses responsibly.

National Union of Workers v Fenner Dunlop Australia 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