DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Mario Verrocchi & East Yarra Friendly Society Pty Ltd
(B2015/1526)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 10 NOVEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mario Verrocchi & East Yarra Friendly Society Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by 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 Mario Verrocchi & East Yarra Friendly Society Pty Ltd (Banyo Site) (the Respondent Company).

[2] On 6 November 2015 my associate was advised that the Respondent Company 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 Mr G Moase 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 the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR573797.

DEPUTY 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 Mario Verrocchi, along with his company, East Yarra Friendly Society Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the proposed industrial action by employees of the company, who were members of the union. The Fair Work Commission had previously issued an order preventing the employees from conducting a protected action ballot. The union challenged this decision in the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that the Commission's order was flawed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commission had correctly exercised its powers in issuing an order that prevented the employees from voting on a proposed protected action. The court had to examine the scope of the Commission's authority under the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the decision-making process complied with the relevant legal standards. The union contended that the Commission's decision was unreasonable and not based on the evidence, and that the employees' right to engage in protected industrial action had been unjustly curtailed.

The court found that the Commission had indeed correctly exercised its powers and that the decision was not flawed. The court held that the Commission's order was reasonable and based on substantial evidence. The employees' right to engage in protected industrial action was not unjustly curtailed, as the Commission had taken into account the potential impact on the company and its employees. The court also noted that the Commission had followed the correct legal principles in reaching its decision. Consequently, the union's challenge to the Commission's order was dismissed, and the ballot was prevented as ordered.

The Federal Court of Australia upheld the Commission's order and dismissed the union's application. The court found that the Commission had correctly exercised its powers and that its decision was reasonable and based on the evidence. The court also found that the employees' right to engage in protected industrial action had not been unjustly curtailed. The union's challenge to the Commission's order was dismissed, and the employees were prevented from conducting a ballot on the proposed protected action.

National Union of Workers v Mario Verrocchi & East Yarra Friendly Society 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