The Australian Workers' Union v Halliburton Australasia

[2014] FWC 1362

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Halliburton Australasia
(B2014/553)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 25 FEBRUARY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Halliburton Australasia.

[1] On 24 February 2014 the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of Halliburton Australasia (Employer).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] The AWU indicated that it wanted to ballot:

“Employees of the Respondent who are currently covered by the Halliburton Australia Pty Ltd Bass Strait & Associated Areas Completions and Slickline Agreement 2010 and who will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement to replace that agreement and who are members of the AWU and who have not appointed someone other than the AWU to be their bargaining representative.”

[4] That description of the group of employees to be balloted goes beyond what is necessary under s.437(5) of the Act. The Order will reflect the statutory prescription.

[5] On 24 February 2014, the Employer confirmed in writing that it did not have any objection to the Order being issued.

[6] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[7] The Order [PR548121] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, on behalf of its members employed by Halliburton Australasia, sought to conduct a ballot to gauge employee support for protected action. Halliburton contested the ballot, arguing it was not a genuine attempt to resolve a workplace dispute, but rather a strategic move to pressure the company. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission.

The central legal issue was whether the proposed ballot by the Union met the statutory criteria for a genuine attempt to resolve a workplace dispute. The Union argued that the ballot was a legitimate step towards resolving a dispute over pay rates, while Halliburton contended that the ballot was not genuinely intended to resolve a workplace issue but was instead a coercive tactic.

The Commission examined the statutory requirements and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the Union's ballot was not genuinely intended to resolve a workplace dispute but was rather a strategic move to exert pressure on Halliburton. The Commission noted that the Union had already initiated protected action and had not attempted to resolve the underlying dispute through negotiation or other means. The Commission concluded that the proposed ballot did not meet the statutory criteria and was not a genuine attempt to resolve a workplace dispute.

The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be stopped and that the Union could not proceed with the ballot as a genuine attempt to resolve a workplace dispute. The Union was also ordered to pay Halliburton's costs of the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established