DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
BlueScope Steel Limited
(B2017/1008)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 27 OCTOBER 2017

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 26 October 2017 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 Heath 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 PR597184.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union initiated proceedings against BlueScope Steel Limited in the Federal Court of Australia. The union sought to conduct a ballot among BlueScope's employees regarding potential protected industrial action. The legal dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically sections relating to the procedural requirements for such a ballot. The union argued that BlueScope had failed to comply with the necessary conditions for holding the ballot, while BlueScope contended that the union had not met the statutory requirements for initiating the ballot.

The court had to determine whether the union had adhered to the procedural prerequisites stipulated by the Fair Work Act. This involved assessing the manner in which the union had notified BlueScope of its intention to hold the ballot, the timing of the notification, and whether the union had provided sufficient information to BlueScope to enable a meaningful response. The court needed to ascertain whether the union had acted in accordance with the legislative framework designed to protect the rights of both employers and employees in the industrial relations process.

In its decision, the court examined the documentation and evidence presented by both parties. It found that the union had not followed the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with the statutory provisions designed to facilitate industrial action and protect the rights of employees and employers. As a result, the court ruled in favour of BlueScope, determining that the union's ballot was invalid due to procedural deficiencies. Consequently, the union's application was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders regarding costs but left it to the parties to agree on any costs incurred during the proceedings. The union's attempt to hold the ballot was quashed, effectively preventing the proposed industrial action from proceeding in its current form. This decision underscores the necessity for strict adherence to legislative procedures when engaging in protected actions, highlighting the importance of compliance with the Fair Work Act's requirements.

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