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
(B2015/1238)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 SEPTEMBER 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 September 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 matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr P Richardson 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 has been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR571582.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Union of Workers v Mario Verrocchi & East Yarra Friendly Society Pty Ltd involved a dispute between a union and employers regarding a proposed ballot for protected action by employees. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was tasked with resolving the conflict. The union sought to conduct a ballot of employees to determine support for protected industrial action, while the employer opposed the ballot on various grounds.

The central legal issue before the FWC was whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the employer contested the union's right to conduct the ballot, questioning whether the union had complied with relevant provisions regarding the timing, notice, and content of the ballot. Additionally, the employer argued that the ballot notice was misleading and not in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

The FWC examined the union's compliance with the statutory requirements for conducting a ballot. It assessed whether the union provided adequate notice and information to employees, ensuring the ballot was conducted in a manner consistent with the Fair Work Act. The FWC found that the union had generally adhered to the procedural requirements, despite some minor shortcomings. It determined that the ballot notice was not misleading and that the union's actions were within the bounds of the law. Consequently, the FWC upheld the union's right to proceed with the ballot.

The FWC's final orders permitted the union to conduct the ballot as proposed, subject to certain conditions to ensure compliance with the Act. The decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements when unions seek to organise 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