DECISION

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

National Union of Workers-Victorian Branch
v
Vinidex Pty Ltd T/A Vinidex (Sunshine)
(B2019/758)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2019

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

[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 10 September 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 Ms D Predic 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 PR712227

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the National Union of Workers-Victorian Branch sought an order to facilitate a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Vinidex Pty Ltd T/A Vinidex (Sunshine). The union argued that the ballot was necessary to gauge employee support for potential industrial action. Vinidex Pty Ltd opposed the application, contending that the ballot was premature and should be postponed until the union had exhausted all available avenues for conciliation and negotiation.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had satisfied the prerequisites for conducting a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the union had genuinely attempted to resolve the dispute through conciliation and whether the proposed ballot was an appropriate and necessary step at that juncture. The Commission also considered whether there was sufficient evidence to support the union's claim that the proposed industrial action was genuinely related to a workplace matter.

In its decision, the Commission found that the union had indeed made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute through conciliation. However, the Commission was not satisfied that the proposed ballot was necessary at that time. The Commission determined that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed industrial action was genuinely related to a workplace matter, as required under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application for an order to facilitate the proposed ballot. The Commission's decision emphasised the importance of conciliation and negotiation as the primary means of resolving workplace disputes before resorting to industrial action.

National Union of Workers-Victorian Branch 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