DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Austrak Pty Ltd
(B2018/131)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Austrak 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 Austrak Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 2 March 2018 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 G Penn 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 PR600815.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union initiated legal proceedings against Austrak Pty Ltd in relation to a proposed ballot of its employees concerning protected industrial action. The Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot, which Austrak opposed, arguing that the ballot did not comply with relevant industrial laws. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the primary body responsible for resolving workplace disputes in Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the procedural requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. The Union contended that its proposed ballot met all necessary statutory criteria, while Austrak argued that the ballot failed to comply with essential procedural requirements, thereby rendering it invalid. The Commission had to determine whether the Union's ballot was lawful and whether the procedural requirements had been adequately fulfilled.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission examined the specific provisions of the Fair Work Act relevant to protected action ballots. It found that the Union's ballot did not meet the statutory requirements for procedural fairness and transparency. The Commission emphasised that the procedural steps outlined in the Act must be strictly followed to ensure the validity of the ballot process. As a result, the Commission ruled in favour of Austrak, invalidating the proposed ballot. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures to maintain the integrity of industrial action processes.

The Australian Workers' Union v Austrak 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