The Australian Workers' Union v Bradken Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 8219

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Bradken Ltd
(B2014/1600)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 18 NOVEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bradken Ltd.

[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 Bradken Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 17 November 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 Mr K. Shepherd, 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, on behalf of its members employed by Bradken Limited, sought to conduct a protected action ballot among Bradken's employees to determine their support for potential industrial action. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for handling workplace relations matters in Australia. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to gauge employee sentiment regarding a range of issues, including pay rates, conditions, and workplace practices.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed ballot was appropriately aligned with the objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the process adhered to the requirements of the Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess whether the ballot was genuinely intended to facilitate protected action, and if the ballot process was fair and lawful. The Union argued that the ballot was a legitimate step to empower employees and give them a voice in potential industrial action. Bradken Limited contested the ballot, suggesting that it was not genuinely intended to facilitate protected action and that it might cause unnecessary disruption.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot was genuinely intended to facilitate protected action and was compliant with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted that the ballot was a legitimate tool for employees to express their views on potential industrial action, and that the process outlined by the Union was fair and lawful. The Union's intention to use the ballot to empower employees and determine their support for protected action was deemed valid. Consequently, the Commission approved the ballot, allowing it to proceed under the protection of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission's final orders included the approval of the proposed ballot process, ensuring that it could proceed in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The Commission also emphasised the importance of ensuring that the ballot was conducted fairly and transparently, with all relevant information provided to employees. Bradken Limited was directed to cooperate with the Union in facilitating the ballot, ensuring that it did not interfere with employees' rights to participate in the process.

The Australian Workers' Union v Bradken Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established