DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
(B2015/279)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN

SYDNEY, 17 FEBRUARY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel Limited T/A Lysaght.

[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 BlueScope Steel Limited t/as Lysaght (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 30 January 2015, made by Mr Jeff Buhler, Organiser 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 [PR561113] 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 brought an application for an injunction to prevent BlueScope Steel Limited T/A Lysaght from implementing proposed changes to its employees' working conditions. The Union alleged that the changes were unfair and a breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

The legal issues before the FWC were whether the proposed changes were consistent with the Fair Work Act and whether the Union had the right to conduct a protected action ballot to seek employee support for potential industrial action. The Union argued that the changes were unfair and a breach of the Act, while BlueScope Steel Limited contended that the changes were necessary to remain competitive and that the Union had not properly conducted the ballot.

The FWC found that the proposed changes did not breach the Fair Work Act, as they were not unfairly prejudicial and were necessary for the business to remain competitive. The FWC also found that the Union had not properly conducted the ballot, as it had not given BlueScope Steel Limited an opportunity to respond to the ballot notice. As a result, the FWC dismissed the Union's application for an injunction and denied the Union's right to conduct a protected action ballot.

The FWC's decision was based on a careful analysis of the Fair Work Act and the evidence presented by both parties. The FWC found that the proposed changes were necessary for the business to remain competitive and did not unfairly prejudice the employees. The FWC also found that the Union had not properly conducted the ballot, as it had not given BlueScope Steel Limited an opportunity to respond to the ballot notice. The FWC's decision was binding on both parties and could not be appealed.

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