[2015] FWC 3073

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 4 May 2015.

Includes decision reference.

Associate to Deputy President Gostencnik.

Dated 5 May 2015.

[2015] FWC 3073

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Plascorp Pty Ltd
(B2015/485)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 MAY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Plascorp 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 Plascorp Pty Ltd (the Respondent Company).

[2] On 1 May 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 Gary Maas 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 PR566958.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A> PR567023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought proceedings against Plascorp Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, seeking a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot of the employees of the company was lawful. The dispute arose when the company sought to undertake a restructure of its business, which would result in a significant number of employees being made redundant. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to allow the employees to consider their options in light of the proposed changes. Plascorp opposed the application, arguing that the ballot was not necessary and would cause unnecessary disruption to the business.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed protected action ballot was a lawful and protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and whether the company had taken appropriate steps to consult with the employees about the proposed changes. The Commission noted that the Act provides for employees to take protected action in certain circumstances, including in relation to changes to their terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also noted that the Act requires employers to take reasonable steps to consult with their employees about proposed changes to their employment.

In considering the application, the Commission found that the proposed protected action ballot was a lawful and protected action under the Act. The Commission noted that the employees had a legitimate interest in considering their options in light of the proposed changes to their employment, and that the ballot was a reasonable means of doing so. The Commission also found that the company had not taken appropriate steps to consult with the employees about the proposed changes, as it had not provided them with sufficient information about the reasons for the changes or the potential impact on their employment. The Commission noted that the company's failure to consult with the employees was a breach of the Act.

The Commission made a declaration that the proposed protected action ballot of the employees of Plascorp Pty Ltd was lawful and protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Commission also ordered the company to take appropriate steps to consult with the employees about the proposed changes to their employment, including providing them with sufficient information about the reasons for the changes and the potential impact on their employment. The Commission did not make any further orders.

National Union of Workers v Plascorp 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