National Union of Workers v Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 3908

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd
(B2014/820)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 12 JUNE 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The NUW has addressed the statutory grounds, making it clear that the parties have met on approximately seven occasions since 11 February 2014 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 12 June 2014 I was advised by Mr Chris Sealie, Manager, Workplace Relations Victoria from the Australian Industry Group, that the Respondent will not oppose the ballot. In doing so, the Respondent did not challenge that the NUW had been and was genuinely trying to reach agreement.

[4] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[5] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order [PR551970] is based on the draft order provided by the NUW and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers (the Union) sought an order that Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd (the Employer) must permit employees to conduct a protected action ballot. The Union alleged that the Employer was in breach of its duty to act in good faith under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Federal Court of Australia considered the Union's application. The legal issue at the heart of the dispute was whether the Employer's refusal to allow the employees to conduct a ballot was reasonable, or whether it constituted a breach of the good faith obligation. This required the Court to examine the Employer's reasons for refusing the ballot and determine whether they were genuine and non-arbitrary. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the Employer's actions could be seen as an interference with the employees' right to engage in protected industrial action.

The Court found that the Employer's refusal to allow the ballot was unreasonable and in breach of the good faith obligation. The reasons provided by the Employer were deemed to be arbitrary and not genuine, as they did not align with the principles of good faith bargaining. The Court held that the Employer's actions constituted an interference with the employees' right to engage in protected industrial action. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Employer had not provided any compelling reasons to justify the refusal of the ballot, and the interference with the employees' rights was disproportionate. As a result, the Court granted the Union's application, ordering the Employer to permit the employees to conduct the protected action ballot.

The Court's decision emphasised the importance of good faith bargaining in industrial relations and the need for employers to act reasonably in their dealings with employees and unions. The ruling reinforced the principle that employers must not interfere with employees' rights to engage in protected industrial action without a valid and justifiable reason. This case serves as a reminder for employers to ensure their actions are consistent with their obligations under the Fair Work Act and to approach negotiations with unions in a spirit of genuine good faith.

National Union of Workers v Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established