DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd
(B2019/394)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 21 MAY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hanson Construction Materials 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 Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 20 May 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does 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 Sean Burke 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 PR708416.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought an interlocutory injunction against Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd to prevent the latter from proceeding with a proposed ballot for protected action. The employees of Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd were seeking to take protected industrial action, and the union was seeking to influence the outcome of the ballot. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The union argued that the ballot notice issued by Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd was misleading and failed to provide adequate information to the employees, which would affect their ability to make an informed decision regarding the protected action. The union contended that the ballot notice did not disclose all the relevant information and was misleading in several respects, including the potential impact on the company and the employees' jobs.

The legal issues before the court included whether the ballot notice was misleading and failed to provide adequate information to the employees, and if so, whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent the company from proceeding with the ballot. The court had to consider the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the common law principles relating to misleading and deceptive conduct. The union argued that the ballot notice was misleading and that the employees were entitled to adequate information to make an informed decision regarding the protected action. Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd, on the other hand, contended that the ballot notice was not misleading and provided sufficient information to the employees.

The court found that the ballot notice was misleading and failed to provide adequate information to the employees. The court held that the notice did not disclose all the relevant information and was misleading in several respects, including the potential impact on the company and the employees' jobs. The court found that the employees were entitled to adequate information to make an informed decision regarding the protected action. The court also found that the misleading nature of the ballot notice was likely to cause prejudice to the employees and that an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent the company from proceeding with the ballot. The court granted the union's application for an interlocutory injunction, restraining Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd from proceeding with the ballot until further order.

The Australian Workers' Union v Hanson Construction Materials 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