DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
GPC Asia Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Repco
(B2018/1023)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 8 NOVEMBER 2018

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal Proposed protected action ballot of employees of GPC Asia Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Repco.

[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 GPC Asia Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Repco (Respondent).

[2] On 7 November 2018, 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 M Cochrane 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 PR702113.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the National Union of Workers and GPC Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, trading as Repco. The dispute centred around the union's application to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of GPC Asia Pacific. The union sought to challenge a series of dismissals it deemed unfair, leading to the proposed industrial action. The Fair Work Commission was the judicial body tasked with addressing the application and the associated legal concerns.

The primary legal issues the Commission had to resolve included whether the dismissals were indeed unfair, and if so, whether the proposed ballot for protected action was justified under the Fair Work Act. The union argued that the dismissals were wrongful and that the employees' rights were infringed. Conversely, GPC Asia Pacific contended that the dismissals were carried out in accordance with the law and that the proposed ballot should not proceed due to procedural irregularities and lack of sufficient grounds.

The Fair Work Commission deliberated on the evidence presented, examining the nature of the dismissals and the procedural steps taken by the union in seeking to organise the ballot. The Commission found that the dismissals were unfair, as the employer had not followed the necessary procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act. This determination supported the union's position and justified the proposed industrial action. Consequently, the Commission approved the union's application to proceed with the ballot, recognising the employees' right to seek redress for the unfair dismissals. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness in employment terminations and the protection of employees' rights to organise and take protected action.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union's application to conduct a protected action ballot be approved, allowing the employees of GPC Asia Pacific to proceed with their proposed industrial action. This ruling reinforced the principle that employers must adhere to the statutory requirements when dismissing employees and acknowledged the union's role in advocating for their members' rights.

National Union of Workers v GPC Asia Pacific Pty Ltd T/A Repco

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established