DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Chemring Australia Pty Ltd
(B2018/1212)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON

MELBOURNE, 20 DECEMBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chemring Australia Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 20 December 2018, 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 Ms T Harrington 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 PR703403.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Workers' Union sought approval for a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chemring Australia Pty Ltd. The employees were seeking to take industrial action, including a strike, in relation to their employment conditions. The company opposed the ballot on the grounds that it was not related to a genuine industrial dispute and did not comply with certain procedural requirements. The Commission was required to determine whether the proposed ballot met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot complied with the legislative requirements. This included whether the ballot related to a genuine industrial dispute and whether the appropriate procedures had been followed. The Commission noted that the employees were seeking to improve their employment conditions, which was a legitimate objective. However, the Commission also found that the ballot did not relate to a genuine industrial dispute, as the employees had not made a valid claim for improved conditions and had not followed the necessary dispute resolution processes. The Commission also found that the ballot did not comply with certain procedural requirements, such as providing the necessary information to the employees.

Following its analysis, the Commission found that the proposed ballot did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted that while the employees' objective was legitimate, the ballot did not relate to a genuine industrial dispute and did not follow the necessary procedures. As a result, the Commission did not grant approval for the proposed ballot. The company's opposition to the ballot was successful.

The Fair Work Commission did not grant approval for the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chemring Australia Pty Ltd. The Commission found that the ballot did not relate to a genuine industrial dispute and did not comply with certain procedural requirements. The employees' objective of improving their employment conditions was legitimate, but the Commission determined that the necessary dispute resolution processes had not been followed. As a result, the company's opposition to the ballot was successful.

The Australian Workers' Union v Chemring 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