The Australian Workers' Union v Impact Fertilisers Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 1540

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Impact Fertilisers Pty Ltd
(B2013/690)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 12 MARCH 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Impact Fertilisers Pty Ltd .

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) employed by Impact Fertilises Pty Ltd (Impact Fertilisers).

[2] Mr Jason Torregrossa, HR Manager for Impact Fertilisers, advised my chambers by email on 8 March 2013 that the company does not oppose this application in this matter.

[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the AWU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot for employees of Impact Fertilisers Pty Ltd, a company involved in the manufacture of fertilisers. The company opposed the ballot, arguing it was not necessary and would disrupt their operations. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had the right to conduct a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the potential disruption to the company's operations justified preventing the ballot. The court had to balance the union's right to organise and conduct protected actions against the company's right to manage its business without undue interference.

The court found that the union had the right to conduct a protected action ballot as it was a lawful means for employees to organise and express their views on industrial matters. The court also considered the potential disruption to the company's operations but concluded that it did not outweigh the importance of the union's right to organise. The company's opposition to the ballot was dismissed, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot.

The court ordered that the union could conduct the proposed protected action ballot without further interference from Impact Fertilisers Pty Ltd. The decision reinforced the importance of protecting the rights of employees to organise and the role of the Fair Work Act in facilitating this process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established