DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Contract Resources Pty Ltd
(B2019/62)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 25 JANUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Contract Resources 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 Contract Resources Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 25 January 2019, 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 B Fullarton 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 PR704319.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Contract Resources Pty Ltd regarding proposed protected action. The union's ballot was challenged by the employer in the Fair Work Commission on the basis that it was not properly notified and particulars of the dispute were not provided. The union argued that the notice was sufficient and that the particulars were not required under the relevant legislation. The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the union's ballot complied with the statutory requirements.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the union's notice of the proposed ballot was adequate and whether particulars of the dispute were necessary. The union contended that the notice provided to the employer was sufficient because it included the date, time, and location of the meeting to conduct the ballot and the nature of the proposed action. The employer, however, argued that the notice did not specify the particulars of the dispute, as required by the Fair Work Act. The union further argued that the particulars of the dispute were not required because the dispute was about wages and conditions, which were already known to the employer.

The Fair Work Commission held that the union's notice was sufficient in form and content, as it provided the employer with the necessary information to prepare for the meeting to conduct the ballot. The Commission further held that particulars of the dispute were not required because the dispute was about wages and conditions, which were already known to the employer. The Commission noted that the purpose of the particulars requirement was to ensure that the employer had sufficient information to respond to the proposed action, and in this case, the employer already had the necessary information. The Commission dismissed the employer's challenge to the union's ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union's proposed ballot of employees of Contract Resources Pty Ltd could proceed as notified. The employer was directed to facilitate the conduct of the ballot in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The union was further directed to provide the employer with a copy of the ballot paper to be used in the ballot. The employer was also ordered to pay the union's costs of the proceedings.

The Australian Workers' Union v Contract Resources 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