DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2019/54)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 23 JANUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 22 January 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent 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 M Toner of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, 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 PR704040.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the National Union of Workers brought proceedings against Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd. The union sought a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot of employees was valid. The ballot aimed to allow employees to vote on taking industrial action, including a strike, in response to the employer's decision to terminate certain employees and alter their conditions of employment. The employer argued that the ballot was invalid because it did not meet the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court was required to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the legal requirements for a valid protected action ballot. The key issue was whether the ballot notice provided by the union was adequate to inform employees of the nature of the proposed action, the reasons for it, and the potential consequences of the action. The employer argued that the notice did not meet these requirements, and therefore the ballot was invalid. The union contended that the notice was sufficient and that the employer's objections were unfounded.

The court found that the union's proposed ballot was valid and that the employer's objections were not well-founded. The ballot notice provided sufficient information to the employees about the nature of the proposed action, the reasons for it, and the potential consequences. The court noted that the notice included details of the employer's decision to terminate certain employees and alter their conditions, as well as the union's concerns about the impact of these decisions on the employees. The court held that the notice was clear and concise, and that it met the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The court declared that the proposed protected action ballot was valid and ordered the employer to facilitate the ballot as proposed by the union. The employer was also ordered to pay the union's costs of the proceedings. The decision highlights the importance of providing clear and comprehensive information to employees in a ballot notice, and the need for employers to ensure that their decisions do not trigger protected industrial action.

National Union of Workers v Robert Bosch (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