DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
ISIS Central Sugar Mill Company Limited
(B2020/246)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 30 APRIL 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ISIS Central Sugar Mill Co. 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 employees of ISIS Central Sugar Mill Company Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 29 April 2020, 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 Bronson William Thomas 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 PR718719.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) filed a case against the Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited, seeking to challenge the company's decision to cancel a proposed ballot for protected action by its employees. The dispute arose when the company, acting under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, sought to prevent the AWU from proceeding with a ballot for protected industrial action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's industrial relations tribunal.

The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of sections of the Fair Work Act, particularly sections 394 and 395, which deal with the protection of industrial action and the procedures for balloting employees. The AWU argued that the company's decision to cancel the ballot was unlawful and that the company had failed to meet the requirements of the Act in doing so. The company, on the other hand, maintained that its actions were within its rights under the Act and that it had followed proper procedures in seeking to prevent the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission, after reviewing the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, found in favour of the AWU. The Commission held that the company had indeed acted unlawfully in cancelling the ballot, and that it had not followed the correct procedures as required by the Fair Work Act. The Commission emphasised that the protection of industrial action is a fundamental aspect of the Act, and that employers must ensure they comply with the law when seeking to prevent such action. Consequently, the Commission ordered the company to allow the AWU to proceed with the ballot as originally planned, and to take steps to rectify any breaches of the Act in its handling of the matter.

The Australian Workers' Union v Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established