DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
BlueScope Steel Limited
(B2019/221)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 MARCH 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel Limited.

[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 Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 15 March 2019, 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 C Kelly 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 PR705892.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought a declaration from the Fair Work Commission that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel Limited was lawful. The proposed ballot was to be conducted under section 319 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute arose after BlueScope Steel Limited implemented changes to the employees' workplace arrangements, leading to the union's assertion that the changes were detrimental to the employees' conditions. The union argued that the proposed ballot was a necessary step to protect the employees' rights and interests.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the proposed ballot was genuinely intended to improve the employees' conditions and whether it was reasonably likely to achieve those improvements. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the ballot was conducted in good faith and if it was protected action as defined in the Fair Work Act. The court had to balance the employees' right to take protected action with the employer's rights and the potential impact on the broader economy.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the union's submissions and the employer's objections. The court found that the proposed ballot was genuinely intended to improve the employees' conditions and was reasonably likely to achieve those improvements. The court also concluded that the ballot was conducted in good faith and constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court declared that the proposed ballot was lawful and could proceed as planned.

As a result of the court's decision, the Australian Workers' Union was granted the declaration it sought, allowing the proposed protected action ballot to proceed. The employees of BlueScope Steel Limited could now vote on the proposed changes to their workplace arrangements, with the outcome potentially leading to improved conditions or further negotiations between the union and the employer.

The Australian Workers' Union v BlueScope Steel Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established