National Union of Workers v Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems Australia Limited

[2014] FWC 7261

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems Australia Limited
(B2014/1465)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 14 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems Australia Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by National Union of Workers (NUW) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems Australia Limited (the Respondent). The application was made on 14 October 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The NUW has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by Kathryn Hilt, an Official of the NUW.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the NUW.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the National Union of Workers and Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems Australia Limited. The dispute arose over a proposed ballot of employees of Meritor regarding protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot for protected action was lawful under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the ballot complied with the procedural requirements and if the protected action related to a protected industrial action matter.

The Fair Work Commission considered whether the union's ballot notice was adequately served on Meritor, as required by the Act. The union argued that the ballot notice was correctly issued and served, but Meritor contended that the notice was deficient. The Commission examined the statutory provisions and case law to ascertain the correct interpretation of the procedural requirements for issuing a ballot notice. It found that the union had not strictly adhered to the requirements, leading to an invalid ballot. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot did not comply with the legislative framework, rendering the protected action unlawful.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the union's proposed ballot for protected action was invalid due to procedural errors in the ballot notice. As a result, the proposed action could not proceed. The Commission's decision was based on the strict interpretation of the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act. The court ordered that the union's proposed ballot be deemed invalid and that no protected action could be undertaken based on the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established