DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Hunter Leisure Pty Ltd
(B2019/655)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 12 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hunter Leisure Pty Ltd.

[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 Hunter Leisure Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 12 August 2019, 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 Anna Thwaites 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 PR711240.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the National Union of Workers sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Hunter Leisure Pty Ltd. Hunter Leisure contested the ballot, arguing it was unlawful and should be prohibited. The Commission was tasked with determining the validity and legality of the proposed ballot.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot adhered to the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, it needed to be established if the ballot was conducted in good faith, involved genuine protected action, and followed the prescribed procedures. Hunter Leisure argued that the ballot did not comply with these statutory requirements, while the union maintained that it was legitimate and within its rights.

The Commission examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to assess the union's actions. It found that the ballot was conducted in good faith and constituted genuine protected action, as it was a preliminary step towards a potential industrial dispute. The Commission also concluded that the procedural requirements were satisfied, thus the ballot was lawful. Consequently, the Commission rejected Hunter Leisure's application to prohibit the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of the union, affirming the legality of the proposed ballot. Hunter Leisure's application to prohibit the ballot was dismissed, and the union was permitted to proceed with the ballot as planned.

National Union of Workers v Hunter Leisure 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