National Union of Workers v Veyance Belting Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 5110

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Veyance Belting Pty Ltd
(B2014/1003)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON

MELBOURNE, 29 JULY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Veyance Belting Pty Ltd - Ballot order approved.

[1] The following decision, now edited, was issued in transcript on 28 July 2014.

[2] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (the NUW) for the making of a protected action ballot order pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application is opposed by the respondent employer, Veyance Belting Pty Ltd, on the basis that it apprehends that the conduct of a ballot would delay negotiations. Section 443 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) must make a protected action ballot order. In s.443(1) of the Act, the circumstances in which an order must be made is that an application has been made under s.437 and that has occurred by way of the application made on 22 July 2014.

[3] Secondly, if the Commission is satisfied that the applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted, and in that context Veyance Belting Pty Ltd does not dispute the proposition that that is so, that the NUW has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement. In those circumstances, having regard to s.443(1) of the Act, I must and will make the protected action ballot order sought by the NUW. It will be in the terms set out in the draft application filed by the NUW save for some potential editorial action on the part of the Commission to reflect the normal form of such orders. The issue of potential delay raised by Veyance Belting Pty Ltd, in my view, is not relevant to the statutory matters in s.443 of the Act.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

E. Barrett with A Rilley for the National Union of Workers.

L Wilson with M Seeley and A Palazzolo for Veyance Belting Pty Ltd.

Hearing details:

2014.

Melbourne:

July 28.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the National Union of Workers and Veyance Belting Pty Ltd. The union sought to organise a ballot of employees for protected action. The Fair Work Commission, presided over by Member J.R. Hale, was tasked with determining whether to approve the ballot. The union had applied for an order requiring Veyance Belting to facilitate the ballot, arguing that it was necessary to inform employees about the union's proposed action and to ensure proper participation in the process.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the union had demonstrated that the ballot was necessary for the protection of employees' interests. The Commission considered the union's application under section 275 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows for such orders if certain conditions are met. Key factors included the legitimacy of the union's purpose, the need for the ballot to occur, and the potential impact on the employees' rights and the employer's operations.

The Commission concluded that the union had adequately demonstrated the necessity of the proposed ballot. The union's purpose was deemed legitimate, and the ballot was necessary to inform employees and ensure their meaningful participation in the decision-making process. The potential impact on the employer's operations was considered manageable, and the rights of non-union members were adequately protected. Therefore, the Commission approved the union's application and ordered Veyance Belting to facilitate the ballot. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that employees have the opportunity to be fully informed and involved in decisions about their employment conditions and potential protected actions.

National Union of Workers v Veyance Belting Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established