DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd T/A Lattice Energy
(B2019/672)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd.

[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 Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd T/A Lattice Energy (Respondent).

[2] On 20 August 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Robert Saunders 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 PR711469.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Australian Workers' Union v Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd T/A Lattice Energy, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing a decision made by the Fair Work Commission regarding a proposed ballot for protected action by employees of Lattice Energy Services. The Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a ballot among employees to determine support for potential industrial action. Lattice Energy Services opposed the ballot, arguing that the proposed action did not satisfy the requirements for protected industrial action under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the proposed action met the statutory criteria for protected industrial action and whether the Fair Work Commission's decision was legally sound. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the proposed action was related to the employees' employment or proposed employment, whether it was an industrial action in the form of a stoppage, and whether it was protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act.

The court found that the proposed action was indeed related to the employees' employment, constituted a stoppage, and was therefore industrial action. It also determined that the proposed action was protected, as it related to employees' conditions of employment or the terms and conditions of their employment. The court upheld the Fair Work Commission's decision, finding it to be legally sound and in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The court did not find it necessary to order any further action by the parties.

The Australian Workers' Union v Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd T/A Lattice Energy

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established