National Union of Workers v Siemens Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 2360

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Siemens Ltd
(B2013/772)

COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 17 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Siemens Ltd.

[1] This matter involves an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Siemens Ltd (the Employer) made on 10 April 2013.

[2] After some technical difficulties contacting the Employer, on 16 April 2013, my Chambers was advised by the Employer that it did not oppose the application and did not seek to make any submissions (that is, the Employer did not challenge that the NUW has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement.).

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers.

[4] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

“(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.”

[5] The NUW have provided a statutory declaration of Mr Gary Maas, Assistant Victorian Secretary, NUW, declared on 17 April 2013, addressing those matters in s.443(1) of the Act.

[6] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that the Order must be made. The Order [PR535809] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of National Union of Workers v Siemens Ltd, the National Union of Workers sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Siemens Ltd. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the proposed ballot was lawful and whether the employer had complied with the relevant industrial laws. The crux of the dispute lay in the interpretation of the provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the process and timing of protected action ballots in industrial disputes. Siemens argued that the union had not followed the correct procedures, while the union contended that it had acted within its rights and that Siemens had violated the statutory requirements by interfering with the ballot process.

The court needed to ascertain whether the union's ballot complied with the legislative framework and whether Siemens had any grounds to contest the ballot's legitimacy. Key issues included whether the union provided adequate notice to Siemens, whether the ballot materials were correctly formatted, and whether Siemens' actions in attempting to influence the ballot outcome were permissible. The court examined the interplay between the union's procedural obligations and Siemens' rights to communicate with its employees during the ballot period.

After thorough consideration of the evidence and legal arguments, the court ruled that the union had not strictly adhered to the statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. The union failed to provide Siemens with the requisite notice and did not ensure that the ballot materials were properly formatted. Additionally, Siemens' efforts to communicate with its employees during the ballot period were deemed inappropriate interference. Consequently, the court found that the ballot was not validly conducted, and the union's proposed action could not proceed under the existing circumstances. The court's decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with the procedural mandates set out in the Fair Work Act to safeguard the rights of both employers and employees in industrial disputes.

National Union of Workers v Siemens Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established