DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
GrainCorp Oilseeds Pty Ltd
(B2016/589)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 JUNE 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of GrainCorp Oilseeds 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 GrainCorp Oilseeds Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 9 June 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 H Miflin 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 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 PR581325.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the National Union of Workers sought an injunction to prevent GrainCorp Oilseeds Pty Ltd from conducting a ballot of its employees regarding potential protected industrial action. The dispute centred on whether the proposed ballot was appropriately conducted under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that GrainCorp failed to provide adequate information to its employees, which is a requirement under the Act. GrainCorp maintained that the ballot was procedurally sound and complied with all statutory obligations.

The court had to determine whether GrainCorp's ballot notice provided employees with sufficient information to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot. Specifically, the court examined whether the notice contained all the prescribed information, including details of the proposed industrial action, the reasons for the action, and the potential impact on employees. The Union contended that GrainCorp omitted critical information that would have enabled employees to fully understand the implications of the ballot. GrainCorp, on the other hand, asserted that the notice met all statutory requirements and provided employees with the necessary information.

The court found that GrainCorp's ballot notice did not contain all the prescribed information as required by the Fair Work Act. The notice lacked specific details that were essential for employees to make an informed decision. Consequently, the court held that GrainCorp had failed to comply with the statutory obligations regarding the ballot. The Union's application for an injunction was granted, effectively preventing GrainCorp from proceeding with the ballot until it complied with the legal requirements.

National Union of Workers v GrainCorp Oilseeds 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