DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Aquamonix Pty Ltd
(B2019/570)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 JULY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Aquamonix Pty Ltd.

[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 Aquamonix Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 23 July 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Christopher Donovan 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 PR710672.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought an application against Aquamonix Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, seeking authorisation for a protected action ballot of Aquamonix's employees. The Union claimed that Aquamonix had engaged in unfair labour practices by terminating employees' employment and refusing to reinstate them. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to protect the employees' rights and interests.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot met the criteria for authorisation under the Fair Work Act. The Union needed to demonstrate that the proposed action was in relation to a "workplace issue" and that the action was protected action as defined by the Act. Aquamonix contested the Union's claims, arguing that the terminations were lawful and that the proposed ballot was not in relation to a genuine workplace issue.

The Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties and determined that the Union had established that the proposed action was in relation to a workplace issue. The Commission found that Aquamonix had engaged in conduct that constituted unfair labour practices, including the unlawful termination of employees. The Commission also found that the proposed ballot was necessary to protect the employees' rights and interests. Therefore, the Commission authorised the proposed ballot, allowing the Union to proceed with the protected action.

The Commission's decision was based on its finding that Aquamonix had engaged in unfair labour practices, and that the proposed ballot was necessary to protect the employees' rights and interests. The Union was granted authorisation to conduct the proposed ballot, and Aquamonix was ordered to provide necessary assistance to facilitate the ballot. The decision provides an important reminder to employers of their obligations under the Fair Work Act and the potential consequences of engaging in unfair labour practices.

The Australian Workers' Union v Aquamonix Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established