DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Sensient Technologies Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/1161)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 4 DECEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sensient Technologies Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by 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 Sensient Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 4 December 2017 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 C Bechaz 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 PR598350.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers (the Union) sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Sensient Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (the Employer) to ascertain the employees’ support for protected action. The Union had previously issued a protected action notice to the Employer, seeking to commence protected action on behalf of its members. The Employer sought an interlocutory injunction from the Federal Court to prevent the Union from conducting the ballot.

The central legal issue was whether the Court should grant the Employer’s injunction application. In considering the matter, the Court was required to determine whether the Union had engaged in conduct that amounted to industrial action, whether the Union was entitled to take industrial action, and whether the Union’s proposed ballot was a form of industrial action.

The Court held that the Union’s proposed ballot was not protected action and that the Union was not entitled to take industrial action. The Union’s proposed ballot was not industrial action as the ballot did not compel any employee to act in a way that would cause disruption to the Employer’s business. The Court found that the ballot was not industrial action because the employees were not compelled to engage in any conduct that would cause disruption to the Employer’s business, and the ballot was not coercive. The Court also found that the Union was not entitled to take industrial action because the Union had not taken reasonable steps to resolve the dispute with the Employer through conciliation or arbitration. The Union’s failure to engage in conciliation or arbitration meant that the Union was not entitled to take industrial action, and the Court refused the Employer’s injunction application.

The Court refused the Employer’s application for an interlocutory injunction. The Court did not grant the injunction because the Union’s proposed ballot was not industrial action, and the Union was not entitled to take industrial action. The Court found that the Union had not engaged in conduct that amounted to industrial action, and the Union was not entitled to take industrial action. The Court also found that the Union had not taken reasonable steps to resolve the dispute with the Employer through conciliation or arbitration.

National Union of Workers v Sensient Technologies 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