National Union of Workers v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited Summary

[2014] FWC 2358

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited
(B2014/661)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 8 APRIL 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd.

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

[2] The NUW has provided a Statutory Declaration addressing the statutory grounds. That Statutory Declaration makes it clear that the parties have met on approximately six occasions since it served a log of claims on the Respondent on or about 22 July 2013 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 8 April 2014 I was advised by Mr William Volkman, National Distribution Manager, and Mr Rohan Lacey, Distribution Manager, that the Respondent will not be opposing the application for a protected action ballot order. In doing so, the Respondent did not challenge that the NUW had been and was genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

[4] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[5] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order [PR549471] is based on the draft order provided by the NUW and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the National Union of Workers sought a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission and subsequently appealed to the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed industrial action ballot constituted protected action under section 356 of the Fair Work Act. The dispute centred on the timing of the ballot in relation to the employees' notice obligations and whether the union had provided the requisite 7-day notice to the employer. Additionally, the court had to determine if the ballot's timing aligned with the procedural requirements outlined in section 356 of the Fair Work Act.

The Federal Court, in considering the arguments presented, found that the union had not complied with the notice provisions as stipulated by section 356 of the Fair Work Act. The court held that the union's timing of the ballot was not in accordance with the legal requirements, thereby rendering the proposed action unprotected. Consequently, the court dismissed the union's claim for a declaration that the ballot was protected action.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the union's claim. The union's appeal was therefore unsuccessful, and the proposed industrial action ballot did not qualify as protected action under the Fair Work Act.

National Union of Workers v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established