The Australian Workers' Union v INPEX Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2021] FWC 6545

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
INPEX Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/1181)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 DECEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of INPEX Australia Pty Ltd

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of INPEX Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 6 December 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did 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 Douglas Charles Heath of the Applicant declared on 30 November 2021, 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 PR736549.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent INPEX Australia Pty Ltd from conducting a ballot of its employees on proposed protected industrial action. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The AWU argued that the ballot process was flawed and should be halted, while INPEX contended that the ballot was lawful and should proceed.

The court needed to determine whether the ballot process complied with the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically section 381, which sets out the requirements for a valid ballot of employees. The AWU argued that the ballot notice was misleading and did not accurately describe the proposed action. They also contended that the ballot period was insufficient to allow employees to properly consider the proposed action. INPEX maintained that the ballot notice was adequate and that the ballot period was sufficient under the Act.

The court found that the ballot notice provided by INPEX was misleading and did not accurately describe the proposed industrial action. The court also held that the ballot period was insufficient to allow employees to properly consider the proposed action. Based on these findings, the court granted the AWU's application for an interlocutory injunction, preventing INPEX from conducting the ballot. The court concluded that the ballot process did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and that the misleading nature of the ballot notice, along with the insufficient ballot period, justified the grant of the injunction.

The court ordered that INPEX Australia Pty Ltd be restrained from conducting the ballot of its employees on the proposed protected action until such time as a compliant ballot notice was provided and a sufficient ballot period was allowed. The injunction was to remain in place until the matter was further heard or until the court was satisfied that the ballot process complied with the Fair Work Act.

The Australian Workers' Union v INPEX Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established