DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited
(B2019/176)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 6 MARCH 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited.

[1] This is an application by The Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 5 March 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 Mr P O’Brien 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 PR705579.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Australian Workers' Union versus Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited, the primary dispute centred around the procedural validity of a proposed industrial action ballot by the union. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the ballot was conducted in accordance with the necessary legal requirements. The Australian Workers' Union sought to organise a strike involving employees of Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited, and the company challenged the legitimacy of the ballot process.

The legal issues before the court included whether the union had correctly notified the employer of the intended ballot, whether the ballot had been conducted fairly and lawfully, and whether the union had complied with the procedural mandates outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to examine the documentation and evidence provided by both parties to ascertain if the union's actions adhered to the stipulated industrial processes.

The court found that the union had not complied with certain procedural requirements, leading to the conclusion that the ballot was not valid. The judge highlighted deficiencies in the notification process and procedural fairness, which were critical in rendering the ballot ineffective. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited, finding the union's ballot to be invalid. This decision effectively prevented the proposed industrial action from proceeding.

The Australian Workers' Union v Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established