DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Tasman Chemicals Pty Ltd
(B2019/489)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 25 JUNE 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Tasman Chemicals 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 Tasman Chemicals Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 24 June 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.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr R Payne of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent, 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 PR709670.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees at Tasman Chemicals Pty Ltd. Tasman Chemicals, through its representatives, opposed the ballot, arguing it was not protected action. The Federal Court of Australia was required to determine whether the proposed ballot met the legal requirements for protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Court examined the nature of the dispute, the terms of the ballot, and whether the ballot was for an industrial purpose and conducted in accordance with the Act.

The legal issues centred on whether the ballot was a genuine dispute of an industrial nature and whether it was conducted in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Court considered whether the ballot related to an industrial dispute, whether it was a fair and reasonable means of resolving that dispute, and whether the proper procedures were followed. The Court also assessed whether the ballot was for an industrial purpose, considering the nature of the demands and the context in which they were made.

The Court found that the proposed ballot was a genuine dispute of an industrial nature, as it related to the employees' working conditions and was aimed at resolving an existing industrial issue. The Court concluded that the ballot was a fair and reasonable means of resolving the dispute, given the circumstances. Additionally, the Court determined that the procedural requirements of the Act were followed, and the ballot was for an industrial purpose. Therefore, the Court held that the proposed ballot met the legal requirements for protected action under the Fair Work Act.

The Court ordered that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Tasman Chemicals Pty Ltd was lawful and could proceed as planned. This decision provided clarity on the legal requirements for conducting a protected action ballot and reinforced the rights of employees to engage in industrial action in pursuit of their interests.

National Union of Workers v Tasman Chemicals 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