DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

The Australian Workers' Union
v
LyondellBasell Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/1098)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 NOVEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of LyondellBasell Australia 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 LyondellBasell Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 21 November 2017 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 S Wood 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 PR597918.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Workers' Union sought an authorisation for a protected action ballot concerning employees of LyondellBasell Australia Pty Ltd. The union aimed to organise a series of stoppages and strikes to address workplace issues. LyondellBasell contested the union's application, arguing that the proposed action was unlawful as it did not comply with the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had complied with the necessary procedural steps to validly call a protected action ballot and whether the proposed action met the criteria for a lawful protected action. The Commission examined the union's notice of the proposed protected action, including the details of the industrial action and the reasons for the action, to determine if it adhered to the statutory requirements.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's notice did not provide sufficient information about the proposed industrial action, including the nature, timing, and duration of the stoppages, and the specific issues being contested. The Commission held that the union had not complied with the procedural prerequisites outlined in the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the authorisation for the protected action ballot was denied. The Commission emphasised the importance of clear and comprehensive notices to ensure transparency and fairness in industrial action proceedings.

The Australian Workers' Union v LyondellBasell Australia 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