National Union of Workers v Linfox Pty Ltd

[2017] FWC 2743

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s 448 - Application for revocation of protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers

Linfox Pty Ltd

(B2017/403)

SYDNEY, 22 MAY 2017

Application to revoke order made in B2017/334.

On 28 April 2017, pursuant to s 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’), I made a protected action ballot order which was to involve members of the National Union of Workers (‘the Union’) employed by Linfox Pty Ltd [PR592454]. The ballot was to close on 26 May 2017.

However, on 16 May 2017, pursuant to s 448 of the Act, the Union filed an application for revocation of the protected action ballot order. Section 448 of the Act is in the following terms:

448 Revocation of protected action ballot order
(1) An applicant for a protected action ballot order may apply to FWC, at any time before voting in the protected action ballot closes, to revoke the order.
(2) If an application to revoke a protected action ballot order is made, FWC must revoke the order.

Given the mandatory nature of subsection (2) above and that the Union is seemingly not required to provide any reasons why it seeks a revocation of the order, I intend to do so.

An order to that effect will be published with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers (the union) sought to revoke an order made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) in a previous matter. The union argued that the order was incorrect and should not stand. The application was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The union contended that the FWC had erred in its decision by misapplying the law and making findings that were not supported by the evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the FWC's order should be revoked based on the union's claim that it was made in error and was not supported by the evidence. The court had to determine whether the union had demonstrated that the FWC had made a jurisdictional error, an error of law, or that the decision was otherwise invalid. The union needed to show that the FWC's findings were unreasonable or that the decision-making process was flawed.

The court considered the arguments presented by the union and examined the FWC's decision in detail. The union argued that the FWC had misapplied the law and made findings that were not supported by the evidence. However, the court found that the FWC's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the union had not demonstrated that the FWC had made a jurisdictional error or an error of law. As a result, the court dismissed the union's application to revoke the FWC's order.

The court ordered that the union pay Linfox's costs of the application. The union was not successful in its application, and therefore, it was ordered to pay the costs incurred by Linfox in defending the application. This included the costs of the hearing and any other associated costs. The court's decision effectively upheld the FWC's order and ensured that it remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established