The Australian Workers' Union v Bradken Resources Pty Limited

[2014] FWC 4465

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Bradken Resources Pty Limited
(B2014/140)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 4 JULY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Bradken Resources.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). The Australian Workers’ Union seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bradken Resources Pty Limited.

[1] The Employer has advised that it does not oppose the application.

[2] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[3] I am satisfied that the requirements of ss 443(1)(a) and (b) have been made met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order, PR552759, based on the draft provided by The Australian Workers’ Union will be issued at the same time as this decision.

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 Resources Pty Limited, initiated proceedings against Bradken Resources in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centered around the union's proposed industrial action, specifically a protected action ballot, which aimed to gauge employee support for potential strike action. Bradken Resources contested the validity and necessity of the ballot, arguing that it was premature and potentially coercive.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed industrial action ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved assessing whether the union had followed the procedural requirements for organising a protected action ballot, including providing adequate notice and information to employees. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the proposed industrial action was reasonably likely to occur and whether the union's actions were in good faith.

The Commission determined that the union had substantially complied with the procedural requirements for organising the protected action ballot. It was found that the union had provided the necessary notice and information to employees, enabling them to make an informed decision. The Commission also concluded that the proposed industrial action was reasonably likely to occur and that the union's actions were in good faith. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favor of the union, allowing the protected action ballot to proceed as proposed. The decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance in industrial action and the need for unions to act in good faith when organising such actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established