The Australian Workers' Union v BlueScope Steel Limited Summary

[2014] FWC 7850

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
BlueScope Steel Limited
(B2014/1538)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 5 NOVEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of BlueScope Steel Limited (the Respondent). The application was made on 30 October 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by Colin Heath, an Official of the AWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union initiated proceedings against BlueScope Steel Limited in the Fair Work Commission, seeking a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union sought to conduct a ballot of its members, who were employees of BlueScope Steel Limited, to determine whether to proceed with protected industrial action. BlueScope Steel Limited contested the Union's claim, arguing that the ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements under the Act, and thus was not protected action.

The central legal issue was whether the proposed ballot met the criteria for protected action as outlined in the Fair Work Act. This involved examining the procedural requirements for protected action, including the necessity for the ballot to be conducted in good faith and in accordance with the Act's provisions. The court needed to determine if the ballot complied with the requirements regarding timing, notice, and the nature of the proposed action.

The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the Australian Workers' Union, determining that the proposed ballot was indeed protected action. The Commission concluded that the ballot was conducted in good faith and adhered to the necessary procedural requirements. The Commission emphasised that the Act permits unions to organise ballots to decide on protected action, provided it is done in accordance with the legislative framework. Consequently, the Commission upheld the Union's right to proceed with the ballot as protected action.

The Commission did not issue any orders beyond its determination that the proposed ballot was protected action, leaving the parties to proceed with the ballot as planned, subject to the procedural guidelines established by the Fair Work Act.

The Australian Workers' Union v BlueScope Steel Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established