National Union of Workers v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 5208

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Linfox Australia Pty Ltd
(B2014/175)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER

SYDNEY, 5 AUGUST 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] On 30 July 2014 the National Union of Workers (the applicant) made an application under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) at its worksite at 27/49 Lenore Drive Erskine Park NSW 2759 who are members of the applicant and for whom the applicant is a bargaining representative in respect of a proposed enterprise agreement.

[2] On 31 July 2014 Mr Nick Leon, Workplace Relations Manager for the respondent, provided advice by email on behalf of the respondent that it did not oppose the making of the order sought by the applicant in its application.

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

[4] The application was supported by a statement made by Mr Charlie Morgan, an employee of the applicant, dated 29 July 2014. On the basis of the matters set out in that statement, I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR553791] based on the draft order provided by the applicant will be issued in conjunction with this Decision. The parties have agreed that the Order will give the date on which the ballot closes as being no later than 20 working days.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the National Union of Workers and Linfox Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around a proposed ballot of Linfox employees to determine whether they wished to engage in protected industrial action. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The union sought a declaration that Linfox had failed to comply with certain legal obligations when it attempted to prevent the ballot. Linfox, on the other hand, argued that its actions were lawful and that the union's ballot was not appropriately structured.

The court was tasked with determining whether Linfox's actions in attempting to prevent the ballot were legitimate and whether the union had followed the necessary procedures for conducting the ballot. Specifically, the court had to consider the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009 in relation to protected action and the process for balloting employees. The court also had to examine the evidence presented by both parties regarding the communication and implementation of the proposed ballot.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Linfox had indeed attempted to interfere with the union's right to conduct a ballot, which was protected by law. The court held that Linfox's actions were not justified under the provisions of the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the union had followed the necessary procedures for the ballot, including providing adequate notice and information to the employees. The court ruled in favour of the union, finding that Linfox's actions were unlawful and that the union was entitled to proceed with the ballot.

The court's decision resulted in a declaration that Linfox had breached the Fair Work Act by attempting to prevent the ballot. The court ordered Linfox to take specific steps to rectify its actions and ensure that the union could conduct the ballot without further interference. The union was also granted an order requiring Linfox to provide certain information to the employees as part of the ballot process. This case underscores the importance of adhering to legal requirements when it comes to industrial action and the rights of employees to engage in protected activities.

National Union of Workers v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established