DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd T/A Hanson
(B2021/1028)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 25 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd T/A Hanson.

[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 T/A Hanson (Respondent).

[2] On 25 October 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 James Weissmann 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 PR735197.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, on behalf of its members, initiated proceedings against Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd T/A Hanson, seeking authorisation for a proposed industrial action ballot among the employees. The dispute arose from ongoing negotiations between the union and the company, which had reached an impasse. The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission was the court that heard and decided the case.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved whether the union's proposed protected action ballot was in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the union had satisfied the requirements for a genuine dispute, the procedural fairness in the negotiation process, and whether the proposed action was protected action as defined by the Act.

The Commission examined the extensive evidence presented by both parties, including the negotiation records, the nature of the dispute, and the union's compliance with the procedural requirements. The Commission found that the union had indeed identified a genuine dispute concerning changes to the employees' conditions of employment. Additionally, the Commission determined that the union had conducted the necessary procedural steps in a fair and reasonable manner. Consequently, the Commission authorised the union to conduct the proposed protected action ballot among the employees of Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd T/A Hanson.

The Commission's decision was based on the union's demonstration of a genuine dispute, procedural fairness in the negotiation process, and compliance with the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The authorisation granted by the Commission allows the union to proceed with the ballot, enabling the employees to exercise their right to take protected industrial action if the ballot is successful.

The Australian Workers' Union v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd T/A Hanson

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established