DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd T/A Lattice Energy
(B2019/639)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 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 9 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 matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Ronald Hayden 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 PR711184.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, on behalf of its members employed by Lattice Energy Services Pty Ltd, trading as Lattice Energy, sought an order in the Federal Court of Australia to allow a proposed ballot of its members to authorise protected industrial action. The employer opposed the ballot on the basis that the ballot was not in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and was therefore invalid. The employer argued that the ballot notice did not comply with section 388 of the Act, in that it did not contain sufficient information about the nature of the proposed protected action, the expected duration, and the effect on other employees.

The legal issues before the court included whether the ballot notice complied with the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot, and whether the Court should grant an order for the employer to allow the ballot to proceed. The Court considered the requirements of section 388 of the Act, which sets out the information that must be contained in a ballot notice, and whether the ballot notice in this case complied with those requirements. The Court also considered whether the employer had a reasonable objection to the ballot, and whether the Court should grant an order for the employer to allow the ballot to proceed.

The Court found that the ballot notice did not contain sufficient information about the nature of the proposed protected action, the expected duration, and the effect on other employees, and therefore did not comply with section 388 of the Act. The Court also found that the employer did not have a reasonable objection to the ballot, and granted an order for the employer to allow the ballot to proceed. The Court held that the employer's failure to provide sufficient information in the ballot notice was not trivial, and that the ballot notice was therefore invalid.

The Court ordered that the employer allow the proposed ballot to proceed, and that the employer provide the Union with any information necessary to enable the Union to prepare a ballot notice that complies with section 388 of the Act. The Court also ordered that the employer pay the Union's costs of the proceeding.

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