DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2020/754)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 30 NOVEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 27 November 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Darren Lee of the Applicant declared on 26 November 2020, 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 PR725021.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought a case against Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The Union sought authorisation for a protected action ballot, which would allow its members, employees of Broadspectrum, to vote on potential industrial action. Broadspectrum contested the ballot, raising objections to the proposed procedures and timing of the ballot. The Commission had to determine whether the Union's proposed ballot met the legal requirements for such an action.

The central legal issue was whether the Union's proposed ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The key concerns were whether the ballot notice was adequate, whether the ballot was being held at a reasonable time, and whether the process for conducting the ballot was fair and lawful. Broadspectrum argued that the ballot notice did not provide enough detail for employees to make an informed decision, and that the timing of the ballot was unreasonable, potentially disrupting critical services provided by Broadspectrum.

The Commission considered the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot and assessed the Union's proposed procedures against these criteria. The Commission found that the ballot notice was adequate, providing sufficient information for employees to understand the nature of the proposed industrial action. Regarding the timing, the Commission held that the proposed ballot was not unreasonable, as it did not interfere with critical services. The Commission also concluded that the process for conducting the ballot was fair and complied with the law. Consequently, the Commission authorised the Union to proceed with the ballot.

The Commission issued an order authorising the Australian Workers' Union to conduct a protected action ballot among its members, employees of Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Union's application. The order also included provisions to ensure that the ballot was conducted in a lawful and fair manner.

The Australian Workers' Union v Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established