DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.448 - Application for revocation of protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers
v
Godfrey Hirst Australia Pty Ltd
(B2015/1111)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 4 AUGUST 2015

Application to revoke order made in B2015/741.

[1] On 21 July 2015 the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) issued a Protected Action Ballot Order [PR569643] (Original Order) following an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW). On 4 August 2015 the NUW made an application to revoke the Original Order.

[2] Section 448 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) states:

“448 Revocation of protected action ballot order

(1) An applicant for a protected action ballot order may apply to the FWC, at any time before voting in the protected action ballot closes, to revoke the order.

(2) If an application to revoke a protected action ballot order is made, the FWC must revoke the order.”

[3] Voting in the protected action ballot pursuant to the Original Order was to close 20 working days from the date the Original Order was issued, 21 July 2015. That means voting in the protected action ballot is due to close on 18 August 2015.

[4] Because the NUW has applied to revoke the Original Order before voting in the protected action ballot has closed, pursuant to section 448(2) of the Act, the Commission must revoke the Original Order.

[5] An Order [PR570178] to this effect will issue concurrently with this decision

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the National Union of Workers (the Applicant) and Godfrey Hirst Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent), the case was heard by the Fair Work Commission. The Applicant sought to revoke a previous order that had been made in the matter of B2015/741. The Applicant argued that the Respondent had engaged in conduct that amounted to an unfair labour practice, warranting the revocation of the prior order. The Respondent contested the Applicant's claims, asserting that its conduct was lawful and did not constitute an unfair labour practice.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the Respondent's actions constituted an unfair labour practice and, if so, whether the prior order should be revoked. The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles governing unfair labour practices. The Applicant argued that the Respondent had engaged in conduct that amounted to an unfair labour practice by failing to provide adequate notice of termination of employment and by failing to pay redundancy entitlements. The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that its actions were lawful and that the Applicant's claims were without merit.

After considering the evidence and the applicable legal principles, the Commission found that the Respondent's conduct did not constitute an unfair labour practice. The Commission held that the Respondent had provided adequate notice of termination of employment and had paid the required redundancy entitlements. Accordingly, the Applicant's application to revoke the prior order was dismissed. The Commission found that the Respondent's conduct did not warrant the revocation of the prior order and that the Applicant's claims were without merit. The Commission dismissed the application and made no further orders.

National Union of Workers v Godfrey Hirst 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