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

[2014] FWC 7455

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
BlueScope Steel Limited T/A Lysaght
(B2014/1484)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel Limited T/A Lysaght.

[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 T/A Lysaght (the Respondent). The application was made on 20 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 Statutory Declaration declared by Liam O’Brien, 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

In the matter of The Australian Workers' Union versus BlueScope Steel Limited trading as Lysaght, the Federal Court of Australia was presented with a dispute concerning a proposed industrial action ballot of employees. The Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of BlueScope Steel Limited, aiming to ascertain their support for potential industrial action. BlueScope Steel Limited opposed the ballot, arguing that the Union had not followed the requisite processes outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Union had complied with the necessary statutory requirements before proceeding with the ballot. Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether the Union had correctly followed the process of providing BlueScope Steel Limited with the required information and allowing the company a reasonable opportunity to respond. This involved examining the timing and content of the Union's communications with BlueScope Steel Limited, and whether these actions were consistent with the procedural obligations under the Act.

The Court held that the Union had not adequately fulfilled its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The Union had failed to provide BlueScope Steel Limited with the requisite information in a timely manner and had not allowed the company a reasonable opportunity to respond. Consequently, the Court found that the Union's proposed ballot did not comply with the statutory requirements. As a result, the Union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed. The Court's decision was grounded in a detailed analysis of the procedural steps outlined in the Act, ensuring that both parties' obligations were clearly delineated and enforced.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established