DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Greyhound Racing Victoria
(B2021/287)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 APRIL 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Greyhound Racing Victoria.

[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 Greyhound Racing Victoria (Respondent).

[2] On 23 April 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Steve Bonica 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 PR728957.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Greyhound Racing Victoria. The ballot was intended to ascertain employee support for potential industrial action. Greyhound Racing Victoria opposed the ballot, arguing that the union had not met the necessary statutory requirements. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for this dispute.

The central legal issue was whether the union had complied with the statutory prerequisites for holding a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had provided Greyhound Racing Victoria with the requisite information and documentation as mandated by the Fair Work Act. The union argued that it had fulfilled all necessary obligations, while Greyhound Racing Victoria contended that there were deficiencies in the documentation provided.

The Commission found that the union had not provided Greyhound Racing Victoria with all the required information in a timely manner. The union had failed to furnish a list of the union members who would be balloted and had not clearly outlined the proposed protected action. These omissions were significant as they undermined the employer's ability to respond appropriately to the ballot. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the union had not complied with the statutory requirements. The ballot was therefore invalid, and the Commission did not grant the union's application.

The Commission's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the statutory obligations and the necessity for clear and timely communication between the parties. The union was directed to remedy the deficiencies within a specified timeframe, but if the issues could not be resolved, the employer would be entitled to seek further orders from the Commission.

The Australian Workers' Union v Greyhound Racing Victoria

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established