DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Bradnams Windows & Doors Pty Ltd T/A Bradnams
(B2016/1110)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 OCTOBER 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bradnam's Windows & Doors Pty Ltd T/A Bradnams.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bradnam’s Windows & Doors Pty Ltd T/A Bradmans (the Respondent).

[2] On 20 October 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr A Colebrook 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR586753.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union initiated proceedings against Bradnams Windows & Doors Pty Ltd T/A Bradnams in the Fair Work Commission, seeking authorisation for a proposed protected action ballot of employees. The dispute centred around the union's request for a ballot to determine employee support for potential industrial action, including strikes and bans on overtime and penalty rates. Bradnams contested the ballot, raising concerns over its potential impact on their business operations and the validity of the union's claims regarding the necessity of the proposed action.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation and application of sections 361 and 362 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the proposed industrial action was "protected action" as defined by the Act, and whether the union had provided sufficient information to justify the need for a ballot. Bradnams argued that the union's application did not meet the statutory requirements, and that the proposed action would cause significant harm to the business without any corresponding benefit to the employees.

In its decision, the Commission found that the union had adequately demonstrated the need for a ballot. The Commission noted that the union's application contained sufficient information regarding the issues at stake, including the employees' concerns about their working conditions and the employer's refusal to negotiate. The Commission also held that the proposed industrial action met the criteria for protected action under the Act. Consequently, the Commission authorised the ballot, emphasising the importance of allowing employees to have their say on the proposed industrial action. The authorisation was conditional upon the union providing Bradnams with a copy of the ballot notice and ensuring that the ballot was conducted in accordance with the Commission's guidelines.

The Australian Workers' Union v Bradnams Windows & Doors Pty Ltd T/A Bradnams

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established