DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Vinidex Pty Limited
(B2016/821)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 27 JULY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Vinidex Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Vinidex Pty Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 27 July 2016 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 Ms S Allison of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, 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 PR583378.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers sought a declaration that Vinidex Pty Limited, an employer, had acted unlawfully by interfering with a proposed industrial action ballot. The Fair Work Commission was the court involved in this dispute. The central legal issues were whether Vinidex had unlawfully interfered with the union's right to organise a protected action ballot and whether the employer's actions constituted an unlawful interference under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission examined whether Vinidex's actions in attempting to discourage employees from participating in the ballot constituted an unlawful interference with the union's activities. The court considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act, which protect the right of employees to organise and participate in industrial action. It assessed whether Vinidex's conduct, which included distributing literature and holding meetings to dissuade employees from participating in the ballot, went beyond legitimate attempts to influence employee decisions and amounted to an unlawful interference. The Commission found that Vinidex's actions did not rise to the level of an unlawful interference, as they did not coerce or unduly influence the employees. The employer had the right to communicate with its employees about the potential impacts of the proposed industrial action.

Consequently, the Commission ruled that Vinidex had not unlawfully interfered with the union's right to organise a protected action ballot. The Commission clarified that employers have the right to engage in lawful communications with their employees regarding industrial action, as long as they do not cross the line into undue influence or coercion. The Commission did not grant the union's request for a declaration of unlawful interference.

National Union of Workers v Vinidex Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established