The Australian Workers' Union v Australian Steel Mill Services Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 3105

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Australian Steel Mill Services Pty Ltd
(B2014/752)

COMMISSIONER RIORDAN

SYDNEY, 12 MAY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Australian Steel Mill Services Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by

the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Australian Steel Mill Services Pty Ltd (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the AWU filed a statement dated 7 May 2014 by Mr Wayne Phillips, Branch Secretary of the AWU.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the AWU, that the AWU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An Order [PR550410] based on the draft order provided by the AWU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union recently appeared before the Fair Work Commission in a case concerning a proposed protected action ballot by employees of Australian Steel Mill Services Pty Ltd. The employees, represented by the Union, sought to conduct a ballot to determine whether to engage in protected industrial action. The dispute centred on the procedural aspects of the ballot, specifically whether the employer had adequately fulfilled its obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that the employer had failed to provide the necessary information and materials required by the Act, while the employer contended that it had complied with its obligations.

The key legal issues before the Commission were whether the employer had provided all necessary information and materials to facilitate the ballot and whether any deficiencies in the employer's actions constituted a breach of the Act. The Commission had to examine the relevant sections of the Act and consider the obligations of the employer in the context of facilitating a lawful ballot. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the employer's actions, or lack thereof, had prejudiced the employees' right to conduct a lawful ballot.

The Commission found that the employer had not fully complied with its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The employer had failed to provide certain information and materials that were essential for the employees to make informed decisions regarding the proposed industrial action. The Commission held that the employer's actions constituted a breach of the Act, as they had not provided all necessary information and materials as required. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to provide the missing information and materials to ensure that the ballot could proceed in accordance with the law. The Commission also found that the employees' right to conduct a lawful ballot had been prejudiced by the employer's non-compliance, and it directed the employer to take specific steps to rectify the situation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established