DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Coregas Pty Ltd T/A Coregas
(B2021/37)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 FEBRUARY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Coregas Pty Ltd T/A Coregas.

[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 Coregas Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 8 February 2021, 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 Chris Newbold of the Applicant declared on 27 January 2021, 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 PR726762

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought an order against Coregas Pty Ltd, trading as Coregas, to prevent the company from conducting a ballot of its employees regarding potential protected action. The Union argued that the ballot would breach certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court needed to determine whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act, particularly focusing on sections 393 and 394, which govern ballots for protected industrial action. Key issues included whether the ballot notice was sufficiently detailed and whether the proposed protected action was reasonably likely to result in a ban on the provision of services. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the ballot was being conducted for a proper purpose, as required by the Act.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found that the ballot notice was inadequate and did not meet the statutory requirements. The notice failed to provide sufficient detail about the proposed action and the specific services that would be affected. The court concluded that the notice did not comply with section 393(2) of the Fair Work Act, which mandates that a ballot notice must include a description of the proposed action and its likely impact on services. The court also determined that the proposed action was not reasonably likely to result in a ban on the provision of services, as required by section 394. Consequently, the Union's application for an injunction was successful, and the court issued an order prohibiting Coregas from conducting the ballot.

The Australian Workers' Union v Coregas Pty Ltd T/A Coregas

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established