DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd
(B2015/1289)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

ADELAIDE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd.

[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 VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 11 September 2015 my associate was advised that the Respondent Company did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the paper without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr A Snowball 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 the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR571879.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Union of Workers v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the union and the employer over a proposed protected action ballot by the employees of VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an Australian workplace relations tribunal. The union sought an authorisation for the ballot, which the employer opposed, citing concerns about the potential impact on business operations and compliance with workplace laws.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed industrial action, a ballot, met the statutory criteria for authorisation under the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer argued that the ballot was not necessary and would cause undue hardship. The union, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was essential for the employees to exercise their right to take protected action in pursuit of their workplace claims. The Commission had to consider whether the proposed action was reasonably likely to result in the achievement of the employees' objectives and whether it complied with the procedural requirements of the Act.

The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the nature of the workplace dispute, the employees' claims, and the employer's operational concerns. It assessed whether the proposed action was a reasonable means to achieve the employees' objectives and whether the employer's concerns about operational impact were valid. The Commission concluded that the ballot was necessary and appropriately structured to comply with the statutory requirements. It found that the proposed action was likely to lead to the resolution of the workplace issues and authorised the union to conduct the ballot. The employer's concerns about operational impact were not sufficient to prevent the authorisation of the ballot.

The Commission's decision authorised the union to conduct the ballot as proposed, subject to certain conditions to ensure fairness and compliance with the procedural requirements of the Act. The authorisation allowed the employees to proceed with the ballot, which was essential for them to exercise their right to take protected action. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in industrial action with the need to protect the employer's business interests and ensure compliance with workplace laws.

National Union of Workers v VIP Plastic Packaging 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