DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Laminex Group Pty Ltd
(B2021/620)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 4 AUGUST 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Laminex Group Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 4 August 2021, the 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 declaration of Alan James Bolton of the AWU made on 2 August 2021, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR732482.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union contested a decision made by Laminex Group Pty Ltd regarding a proposed protected action ballot of employees. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The union sought to conduct a ballot among the employees to determine whether to engage in protected industrial action. Laminex Group Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, asserting that it would breach the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements for protected action. This included examining whether the union had properly notified Laminex Group Pty Ltd and whether the ballot's purpose and timing were permissible under the Act. The court also had to determine whether the union's actions were reasonable and if Laminex Group Pty Ltd's opposition was justified.

The court held that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the statutory requirements as it did not provide adequate notice to Laminex Group Pty Ltd. The union had failed to provide the necessary information regarding the ballot's purpose and timing, which was a critical component of the Act's requirements. Furthermore, the court found that the union's actions were not reasonable given the lack of compliance with the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Laminex Group Pty Ltd, finding that the proposed ballot was not lawful. As a result, the union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed.

The Australian Workers' Union v Laminex Group 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