National Union of Workers v Statewide Independent Wholesalers Ltd

Case [2013] FWC 9348


[2013] FWC 9348

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Statewide Independent Wholesalers Ltd
(B2013/1511)

COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 27 NOVEMBER 2013

Application for a protected action ballot by employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Ltd.

[1] This matter involves an application by the National Union of Workers (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Ltd (the Employer), made on 25 November 2013.

[2] 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.

    (2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

    (3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

      (a) the name of each applicant for the order;

      (b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

      (c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

      (d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

    (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.

    (4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

      (a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

      (b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

    (5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

    Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[3] On 26 November 2013, my Chambers was advised by the Employer that it did not object to the application. The Employer did not seek to make submissions or be heard on the matter (that is, the Employer did not challenge that the Applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement).

[4] The Applicant has provided a statutory declaration of Mr Dario Mujkic, Industrial Officer, NUW, declared on 26 November 2013, addressing the requirements of sections 437, 438, 440 and 443 of the Act.

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

[6] I am satisfied that the application meets the requirements of section 437 of the Act. I am satisfied that the application meets the requirements of section 438 of the Act, that is the application has not been made earlier than 30 days before the nominal expiry date of the enterprise agreement covering the employees who will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement.

[7] I am satisfied that the requirements of section 440 of the Act have been met.

[8] I am satisfied that the requirements of section 443 of the Act have been met, in particular that the Applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer and that the draft order meets the requirements of section 443(3) of the Act. The Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent.

[9] As I am satisfied that the requirements of the Act have been met, pursuant to section 443 of the Act, the Order must be made. The Order [PR545082] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR545081>

Details
AGLC
National Union of Workers v Statewide Independent Wholesalers Ltd [2013] FWC 9348
Case
[2013] FWC 9348
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot, seeking to authorise industrial action by employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Ltd. The company, which is in liquidation, opposed the application, arguing that the employees were not eligible for the ballot as they were not currently employed by the company and had been stood down since the liquidation. The Fair Work Commission heard the application and was required to determine whether the employees could lawfully proceed with a protected action ballot despite being stood down and the company being in liquidation.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether employees who were stood down due to the liquidation of their employer could still be eligible to participate in a protected action ballot. The Commission needed to consider the definition of "employee" under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the employees remained in an employment relationship with the liquidator of the company. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the industrial action proposed by the union was protected action under the Act, despite the employees not being currently employed by the company.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employees who were stood down due to the liquidation of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Ltd remained "employees" for the purposes of the Fair Work Act. The Commission concluded that the employees retained their employment relationship with the liquidator of the company, which allowed them to participate in a protected action ballot. The Commission further determined that the proposed industrial action by the union was protected action, as it related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment and the circumstances of their dismissal. Accordingly, the application for a protected action ballot was approved.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that a protected action ballot be conducted among the employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Ltd, who had been stood down due to the company's liquidation. This decision allows the employees to potentially proceed with industrial action in relation to their terms and conditions of employment and the circumstances of their dismissal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.