DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Motherson Elastomers Pty Ltd
(B2016/899)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 24 AUGUST 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Motherson Elastomers 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 Motherson Elastomers Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 23 August 2016 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 Mr A Portelli 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 there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR584623.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the National Union of Workers versus Motherson Elastomers Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with addressing the legality of a proposed protected action ballot organised by the union. The ballot aimed to empower the employees of Motherson Elastomers to vote on potential industrial action, including strikes or other work stoppages, due to ongoing disputes over pay and conditions. The company sought to prevent the ballot on the grounds that it would lead to significant disruption and potential harm to its business operations, which could adversely affect customers, suppliers, and employees.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the potential for disruption outweighed the employees' right to organise and vote on protected industrial action. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the ballot was reasonably necessary and whether there were adequate measures in place to minimise any adverse effects on the company's operations. The company argued that the ballot was unnecessary as it believed the issues could be resolved through existing negotiation processes.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission concluded that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the threshold for reasonableness under the Fair Work Act. The company had presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed industrial action would cause significant disruption to its business, potentially affecting its ability to meet contractual obligations with customers and suppliers. Additionally, the Commission found that the union had not provided adequate evidence to support the necessity of the ballot or to show that it would be conducted in a manner that minimised disruption. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was not reasonably necessary and therefore unlawful. The Commission's decision effectively prevented the union from proceeding with the ballot as planned.

National Union of Workers v Motherson Elastomers 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