The Australian Workers’ Union

[2014] FWC 2685

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
(B2014/715)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 23 APRIL 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of One Steel Recycling Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) employed by One Steel Recycling Pty Ltd (the employer).

[2] Following contact with the employer by my associate, Mr Bruce Howden, Operations Manager for the employer emailed my chambers indicating that the employer did not oppose this application.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by Jimmy Mastrandonakis, an official of the AWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order in the terms sought by the AWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) was involved in a dispute with One Steel Recycling Pty Ltd (One Steel). The AWU, on behalf of its members employed by One Steel, sought to conduct a protected action ballot. This action was proposed to address certain employment grievances, leading to the legal challenge. The Federal Court of Australia was the judicial body tasked with determining the validity and legality of this proposed ballot.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the AWU had complied with the necessary procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) before conducting the ballot. Specifically, the Court had to assess if the AWU had provided One Steel with the required information and if One Steel had been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposed ballot. Additionally, the Court examined whether the proposed ballot was reasonable and necessary for the protection of the employees' interests.

In its decision, the Court held that the AWU had not adequately fulfilled the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The Court found that the information provided to One Steel was insufficient and that the company had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. Furthermore, the Court determined that the proposed ballot was not reasonable or necessary given the circumstances. Consequently, the Court ruled in favour of One Steel, prohibiting the AWU from proceeding with the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established