DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Air Liquide Australia Limited
(B2021/206)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Air Liquide Australia 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 Air Liquide Australia Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 25 March 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr David Joseph Swan 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 PR728084.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union initiated proceedings against Air Liquide Australia Limited in the Federal Court of Australia. The union sought a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Air Liquide Australia Limited was lawful and valid. The ballot was intended to allow employees to vote on whether to take industrial action in support of their claims for better wages and conditions. Air Liquide Australia Limited opposed the ballot on the grounds that it was not properly conducted and that it did not comply with the necessary legal requirements.

The legal issues before the court were whether the ballot was properly conducted in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the union had followed the correct procedures in calling the ballot. The court had to determine whether the union's actions were consistent with the legal requirements for protected action and whether the ballot was a lawful means of seeking to improve employees' wages and conditions. The court also had to consider whether the union had acted in good faith and whether there was any evidence of coercion or undue influence on the part of the union.

The court found that the union had followed the correct procedures in calling the ballot and that the ballot was properly conducted in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The court held that the union had acted in good faith and that there was no evidence of coercion or undue influence. The court found that the ballot was a lawful means of seeking to improve employees' wages and conditions and that it was not improper for the union to call the ballot. The court held that the union's actions were consistent with the legal requirements for protected action and that the ballot was therefore valid and lawful.

The court made a declaration that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Air Liquide Australia Limited was lawful and valid. The court also ordered that Air Liquide Australia Limited pay the union's costs of the proceedings. The court's decision upheld the right of employees to take industrial action in support of their claims for better wages and conditions and reinforced the importance of following the correct legal procedures when conducting a ballot.

The Australian Workers' Union v Air Liquide Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established