DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Visy Plastics Pty Ltd
(B2016/989)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 SEPTEMBER 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Visy Plastics 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 Visy Plastics Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 13 September 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 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 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 PR585360.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of National Union of Workers v Visy Plastics Pty Ltd involved the union and its members in a dispute over the conduct of a protected action ballot. The union, representing employees of Visy Plastics Pty Ltd, sought to conduct a ballot to determine whether the employees should engage in protected industrial action. Visy Plastics Pty Ltd objected to the manner in which the union intended to conduct the ballot, raising concerns about the process and the potential impact on the employees and the company. The matter was brought before the court to resolve the dispute and determine the appropriate process for the ballot.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union's proposed method of conducting the ballot was lawful and in accordance with the relevant industrial relations legislation. The court needed to consider the specific requirements and protections provided by the law regarding protected action ballots and determine whether the union's proposed process complied with those requirements. The court also needed to weigh the rights of the employees to engage in protected industrial action against the rights of the employer to protect its business interests.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the legislative framework governing protected action ballots and the specific provisions relevant to the conduct of such ballots. The court examined the union's proposed process and assessed whether it met the statutory requirements and protected the rights of both the employees and the employer. The court concluded that the union's proposed method of conducting the ballot did not comply with the relevant legislation, as it did not adequately protect the rights of the employees and potentially endangered the company's business operations. The court found that the union's process was not lawful and ordered that the ballot be conducted in a manner that complied with the statutory requirements. The court's decision ensured that the rights of both parties were protected and that the ballot process was conducted in a fair and lawful manner.

The court ordered that the union conduct the ballot in accordance with the statutory requirements, ensuring that the process adequately protected the rights of the employees and did not endanger the company's business operations. The union was directed to revise its proposed method of conducting the ballot to comply with the relevant industrial relations legislation. The court's decision provided clarity on the lawful conduct of protected action ballots and reinforced the importance of balancing the rights of employees and employers in industrial relations disputes.

National Union of Workers v Visy Plastics 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