DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Paper Australia Pty Limited T/A Australian Paper
(B2015/1165)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 14 AUGUST 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Paper Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by 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 Paper Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent Company).

[2] On 10 August 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 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 the requirements in s. 443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR570673

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers sought a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Paper Pty Ltd. was lawful. Paper Australia Pty Ltd., trading as Australian Paper, opposed the application. The dispute arose from the union's proposal to conduct a ballot of employees to determine if they supported protected industrial action, specifically a strike, in response to the employer's decision to terminate a long-standing practice of allowing employees to take a meal break during their shift. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the proposed ballot for protected action was permissible under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the proposed strike action was in relation to an industrial dispute and if the union had complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Act. The employer argued that the proposed strike action was not related to an industrial dispute as defined in the Act and that the union had not properly notified the employer of the ballot, as required.

The court found that the proposed strike action was indeed related to an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. The court held that the dispute related to the termination of a workplace practice that had previously been agreed upon, which constituted an industrial matter. Additionally, the court concluded that the union had adequately notified the employer of the ballot, as required by the Act. Therefore, the court determined that the proposed ballot for protected action was lawful and dismissed the employer's application.

In dismissing the application, the court found in favour of the union and granted the declaration sought. The court's decision upheld the union's right to conduct the ballot for protected action, thereby affirming the importance of workplace practices and the procedural requirements for such actions under the Fair Work Act.

National Union of Workers v Paper Australia Pty Limited T/A Australian Paper

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established