DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Ausgrid
(B2015/10)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

SYDNEY, 20 JANUARY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ausgrid, Fair Work Act 2009 ss. 414(2)(a), 437, 443(1), 443(5),446.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). The AWU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ausgrid.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of the Act, and s.443(1) in particular, have been met. Accordingly, an order must be made. In reaching my decision I rely upon a witness statement dated 14 January 2015 of Mr Cecil Bodnar, an Organiser with the AWU Greater NSW Branch providing information about matters relevant to s.443(1) of the Act.

[3] In accordance with s.443(5) of the Act, I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying an extension to the period of written notice contained in paragraph 414(2)(a) of the Act. The period will be extended to 7 working days. In reaching this decision I rely on the evidence of Mr Mark Greenhill who was called in related proceedings on behalf of Ausgrid. 1 No submission was made by the AWU to persuade me that this decision should differ from the decisions I made in those matters on 12 January 2015. 2

[4] An order [PR559906] based on the draft order provided by the AWU will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Ms J. Gherjestani on behalf of the AWU.

Mr G. Phillips and Ms N. Petit solicitors on behalf of Ausgrid.

Hearing details:

Sydney.

2015.

January, 9 and 16.

1 B2015/5, B2015/6, B2015/8, B2015/11 and B2015/12.

2 [2015] FWC 244; [2015] FWC 242; [2015] FWC 238; [2015] FWC 236; and [2015] FWC 243.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In The Australian Workers' Union v Ausgrid, the dispute revolved around a proposed ballot of employees of Ausgrid regarding protected action. The Australian Workers' Union, as the representative of the employees, sought to conduct the ballot to determine if the employees were willing to take industrial action. Ausgrid, the employer, opposed the ballot, leading to the matter being brought before the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation and application of various sections of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements under sections 414(2)(a), 437, 443(1), 443(5), and 446 of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission examined the statutory framework and the procedural steps taken by the Union. It considered the necessity of the ballot in light of the existing provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly focusing on whether the proposed action was for the purpose of achieving an industrial objective. The court also assessed whether the ballot notice provided sufficient detail and clarity to meet the statutory standards. After a thorough review, the Commission found that the Union had adhered to the legislative requirements. It concluded that the proposed ballot was appropriately aligned with the provisions of the Act and did not contravene any statutory provisions. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Union, allowing the ballot to proceed as planned. This decision underscored the importance of compliance with legislative mandates in industrial action processes.

The Australian Workers' Union v Ausgrid

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established