The Australian Workers' Union v Ardent Leisure Limited T/A Dreamworld

[2013] FWC 10134

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Ardent Leisure Limited T/A Dreamworld
(B2013/1591)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 23 DECEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Ardent Leisure Limited at Dreamworld Parkway.

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Bell Scaffolding Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Australian Workers’ Union (the Union) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ardent Leisure Limited at Dreamworld Parkway.

[2] The Employer advised by email on 20 December 2013 that the Ardent Leisure Limited T/A Dreamworld will not be contesting the application.

[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR546235] based on the draft order provided by the Union has been issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, acting on behalf of certain employees of Ardent Leisure Limited, sought an order to allow a proposed industrial action ballot. The dispute arose at Dreamworld Parkway, and the matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The employees sought to ballot for a proposed protected action, which Ardent Leisure Limited opposed on several grounds.

The primary legal issue the commission had to address was whether the proposed industrial action was protected action as defined under the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved examining the nature of the proposed action, the processes followed in seeking to ballot, and whether the action was genuinely for the purpose of a dispute between employees and their employer. Additionally, the commission had to determine if there were any procedural irregularities in the balloting process that could invalidate the proposed action.

The Fair Work Commission considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to assess the legitimacy of the proposed action and the procedural correctness of the balloting process. The commission found that the proposed action was indeed protected action and that the procedural requirements for the ballot were satisfied. Consequently, the commission ruled in favour of the employees and granted the order to proceed with the ballot. The employer's objections were dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed industrial action ballot be permitted to proceed as planned. This decision was based on the finding that the proposed action was protected action and that there were no procedural defects in the balloting process. The employees could therefore move forward with the ballot under the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established