National Union of Workers v Netafim Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 1247

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Netafim Australia Pty Ltd
(B2014/533)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 19 FEBRUARY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Netafim Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the National Union of Workers (NUW) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Netafim Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 14 February 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised in correspondence 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 addressed the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in the body of the application but not by supplying a separate statement as required by the Rules. To the extent necessary I waive compliance with the requirements of the Rules.

[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 National Union of Workers filed an application against Netafim Australia Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought authorisation to conduct a ballot of its members employed by Netafim for the purpose of determining whether they wished to take protected action. The employees were concerned about potential redundancies and changes to their working conditions. Netafim opposed the application, arguing that the ballot was premature and would unnecessarily disrupt the workplace.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed ballot constituted protected action and whether the union had provided sufficient evidence to justify the authorisation of the ballot. The Commission had to consider the requirements of the Fair Work Act and the union's right to organise and engage in collective bargaining. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess the potential impact of the ballot on the employees and the employer.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot did constitute protected action under the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted that the employees had a genuine interest in the proposed terms and conditions of employment, and the ballot was a reasonable means of determining the members' wishes. The Commission also found that the union had provided sufficient evidence to support the authorisation of the ballot, including the potential for redundancies and changes to working conditions. The Commission concluded that the authorisation of the ballot was in the interests of industrial justice and fairness.

The Commission authorised the union to conduct the proposed ballot. Netafim was ordered to facilitate the ballot by providing the union with access to the employees and allowing the union to provide information to the employees about the ballot. The Commission also ordered that the ballot be conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner and that the results be reported to the Commission.

National Union of Workers v Netafim Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established