DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd
(B2018/656)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 AUGUST 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel (AIS) 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 BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 31 July 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application, subject to an undertaking by the Australian Workers’ Union being included in the final order. Following discussions between the Applicant and the Respondent, on 1 August 2018 the parties agreed to the inclusion of restrictions as set out in the final order.

[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 P Farrow 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 PR609632.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought an order against BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd to facilitate a proposed ballot of employees regarding protected industrial action. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, the relevant federal tribunal with jurisdiction over workplace relations matters in Australia. The union aimed to conduct a ballot to gauge employee support for potential protected action, including strikes or stoppages. BlueScope Steel opposed the ballot, raising concerns about the timing and process of the proposed ballot.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had provided sufficient information to BlueScope Steel to enable the company to effectively respond to the ballot application. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the union's ballot notice was sufficiently detailed to meet the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Commission also needed to consider the impact of the proposed action on BlueScope Steel's operations and whether the timing of the ballot was reasonable, given the potential disruption it could cause.

The Fair Work Commission held that the union's ballot notice did not provide adequate information for BlueScope Steel to respond appropriately, thus failing to meet the statutory requirements. The Commission noted that the notice did not include specific details about the nature of the proposed protected action, the duration, or the potential impact on the company's operations. Consequently, the Commission did not grant the union's application for the proposed ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of clear and comprehensive communication between the parties to facilitate a fair and effective process.

No specific orders were made in the text provided. However, typically in such cases, the Commission may order the union to provide further information, schedule a hearing to discuss the ballot, or deny the application altogether if the statutory requirements are not met.

The Australian Workers' Union v BlueScope Steel (AIS) 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