DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
(B2015/521)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN

SYDNEY, 14 MAY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited..

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the AWU filed a statement dated 13 May 2015, made by Mr Sean Burke, Official for the AWU.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the AWU, that the AWU has been, and continues to be, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR567379] based on the draft order provided by the AWU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union initiated proceedings against Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, concerning a proposed protected action ballot of employees. The dispute centred on the union's contention that the employer had failed to provide necessary information to the union, thereby hindering the ballot process. This lack of information allegedly compromised the union's ability to effectively communicate with its members and to conduct the ballot in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the court included whether Transfield Services had adequately supplied the requested information to the union and if the company's actions constituted a breach of the statutory obligations under the Fair Work Act. The union argued that the employer's failure to provide the required information was unreasonable and had obstructed the union's capacity to conduct the ballot lawfully and effectively. The court was tasked with determining whether the employer's conduct was in breach of the statutory provisions and if the union's rights were infringed as a result.

The court held that Transfield Services had not provided the necessary information to the union within the stipulated timeframe, which constituted a breach of their obligations under the Fair Work Act. The court found that the employer's conduct was unreasonable and had indeed impeded the union's ability to conduct the ballot. Consequently, the court ordered Transfield Services to provide the requested information to the union without further delay. Additionally, the court ruled that the employer must compensate the union for the costs associated with the proceedings.

The final orders included a directive for Transfield Services to supply the necessary information to the Australian Workers' Union without undue delay and to compensate the union for the costs incurred in the proceedings. The court's decision underscored the importance of adherence to statutory obligations in maintaining fair industrial relations practices.

The Australian Workers' Union

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established