The Australian Workers' Union v BlueScope Steel Limited T/A Lysaght

[2022] FWC 1930

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v

BlueScope Steel Limited T/A Lysaght

(B2022/1119)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 22 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel Limited

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 trading as Lysaght (Respondent).

On 21 July 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Steven Bonica 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR744052.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for a protected action ballot order concerning employees of BlueScope Steel Limited trading as Lysaght. The FWC was asked to determine whether the AWU could proceed with a ballot for protected action as per Section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The FWC Deputy President, Clancy, was assigned to the case. BlueScope Steel Limited did not oppose the application, leading the Deputy President to decide the matter on the provided documentation without a hearing.

The legal issues the court addressed were whether the AWU had fulfilled the notification time requirements under the Act and if it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with BlueScope Steel Limited. The AWU argued that it had taken steps to bargain with BlueScope Steel Limited and was genuinely attempting to reach an agreement. The Deputy President examined the declaration of Mr. Steven Bonica of the AWU, which detailed the union's bargaining efforts with BlueScope Steel Limited, and the evidence that the union had been and was genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the company.

Upon reviewing the evidence presented, including the declaration by Mr. Steven Bonica, the Deputy President concluded that the AWU had met the notification time requirements and had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with BlueScope Steel Limited. The Deputy President was satisfied that the requirements under Section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Consequently, the Deputy President determined that the AWU could proceed with the protected action ballot.

An order has been issued in PR744052, permitting the AWU to conduct the protected action ballot as requested. The Deputy President issued this order based on the evidence presented and the absence of opposition from 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