DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/772)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 19 September 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Sharon Morris of the NUW declared on 12 September 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR712599.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the National Union of Workers and Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot amongst the employees of Prysmian Australia, which the company opposed. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had a legitimate basis to proceed with a proposed protected action ballot. This involved interpreting the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 and determining the rights and obligations of both the union and the employer. The court had to consider the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot, including whether the union had properly notified the employer and whether the ballot related to a genuine industrial dispute.

The court examined the procedural steps taken by the union and the response of the employer. It determined that the union had followed the necessary procedures and that the proposed ballot related to a genuine industrial dispute. The court found that the employer's opposition was not sufficient to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot. The union's right to organise and engage in protected action was upheld, subject to compliance with the statutory requirements.

The court ordered that the union could proceed with the proposed protected action ballot. The employer was directed to facilitate the ballot and to provide any necessary information to the union to enable the employees to make an informed decision. The union was reminded of its obligations to act in good faith and to comply with the procedural requirements throughout the process.

National Union of Workers v Prysmian Australia 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