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
(B2015/1520)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 5 NOVEMBER 2015

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

[1] This is an application by the 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 (the Respondent).

[2] On 4 November 2015 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 S Allison 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 separately issued in PR573653.

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 challenging a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mario Verrocchi & East Yarra Friendly Society Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the validity of the ballot and whether it complied with the necessary legal requirements. The matter was heard and determined in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The National Union of Workers sought to ensure that the ballot met all legal standards and that the employees' rights were protected.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the ballot notice provided by the employer was adequate and whether the process followed was in accordance with the applicable laws. Specifically, the court had to determine if the ballot notice was sufficiently clear and detailed to allow employees to make an informed decision about participating in the proposed protected action. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the employer had complied with the necessary procedures and if the ballot was conducted in a manner that was fair and just.

The court found that the ballot notice was not sufficiently clear and detailed, thereby failing to meet the legal requirements. The notice did not adequately explain the nature of the proposed protected action, the potential implications for the employees, and the rights and obligations of the parties involved. The court held that the notice was deficient in several aspects, including the lack of specific information about the proposed action, the potential consequences, and the rights of the employees. Consequently, the court ruled that the ballot was invalid due to the inadequacy of the ballot notice. The court's decision emphasised the importance of providing comprehensive and clear information to employees to enable them to make an informed decision about participating in protected actions.

As a result of the court's determination, the proposed protected action ballot of the employees of Mario Verrocchi & East Yarra Friendly Society Pty Ltd was declared invalid. The court's ruling ensures that the employees' rights are protected and that any future ballot must comply with the legal requirements for clarity and detail. This decision serves as a reminder to employers of the necessity to provide employees with adequate information to facilitate informed decision-making in the context of protected actions.

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