DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Vinidex Pty Ltd T/A Vinidex (Sunshine)
(B2019/445)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 7 JUNE 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Vinidex 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 Vinidex Pty Ltd T/A Vinidex (Sunshine) (Respondent).

[2] On 6 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 without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Shara Teo of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and 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 PR709134.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to determine whether the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Vinidex Pty Ltd, trading as Vinidex (Sunshine), was in accordance with the relevant industrial legislation. The respondents were the employees of Vinidex Pty Ltd, and the applicant was the National Union of Workers. The ballot proposed by the union was for the employees to take strike action to support their claims for additional remuneration. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements and whether it was genuinely in support of a workplace issue.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements. The ballot paper and accompanying notice included all the necessary information as mandated by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also determined that the proposed industrial action was genuinely in support of a workplace issue. The union's claims for additional remuneration were directly related to the employees' conditions of employment, which was a legitimate workplace issue. The Commission concluded that the proposed industrial action was protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot of Vinidex Pty Ltd employees be authorised, and the employees were permitted to engage in the protected action as proposed.

National Union of Workers v Vinidex Pty Ltd T/A Vinidex (Sunshine)

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established