| [2014] FWC 7518 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
National Union of Workers
v
Pental Products Pty Ltd
(B2014/1481)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC | CANBERRA, 23 OCTOBER 2014 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Pental Products 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 Pental Products Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
[2] The NUW has provided a Statutory Declaration addressing the statutory grounds. That Statutory Declaration makes it clear that the parties have met on approximately six occasions since 12 August 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 21 October 2014 I was advised by Mr Con Papallo, the Operations Manager of the Respondent that the Respondent was opposing the ballot. I subsequently contacted Mr Papallo to discuss the basis of his opposition. In that discussion Mr Papallo indicated that the NUW had been and was genuinely trying to reach agreement in respect of the site and the Respondent’s opposition was built out of frustration with the delays in the negotiations.
[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 [PR556935] 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
<Price code A, PR556934>
- AGLC
- National Union of Workers v Pental Products Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 7518
- Case
- [2014] FWC 7518
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondents' ballot met the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the applicants contended that the ballot notice did not include all the mandatory particulars required by section 386 of the Act. This included the requirement for the ballot notice to specify the proposed action, the period for which the action might be taken, and the period for which the union sought to preserve the right to take the action.
The court found that the ballot notice did indeed omit certain mandatory particulars that were necessary for the ballot to be considered valid under the Act. It was determined that the failure to include these particulars meant that the ballot did not meet the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. Consequently, the court granted the interlocutory injunction sought by the applicants, restraining the respondents from proceeding with the ballot. The court emphasised that it was not making any findings as to the merits of the proposed industrial action or the merits of the dispute between the parties, but rather was focusing solely on the procedural compliance of the ballot process.
As a result of the court's decision, Pental Products Pty Ltd was restrained from proceeding with the proposed ballot until it complied with the statutory requirements. The court's order was clear and specific, ensuring that the respondents understood the precise steps they needed to take to rectify the deficiencies in their ballot notice. This case underscores the importance of strict compliance with statutory procedures in industrial relations matters and the courts' willingness to intervene to ensure such compliance.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.