DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd
(B2018/642)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

BRISBANE, 27 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Monadelphous Engineering 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 Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 27 July 2018 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 P Osborne 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 PR609474.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought an application against Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd concerning a proposed industrial action ballot of the company's employees. The ballot was intended to determine whether the employees would support protected action, specifically a strike, in response to the company's proposed changes to workplace conditions. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues in the case revolved around whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the company had taken appropriate steps to facilitate the ballot process. The court had to consider the specific provisions of the Act relating to protected action and the obligations of both employers and unions in conducting such a ballot.

The court examined the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 and determined that the proposed ballot did not meet the statutory criteria. Specifically, the court found that the ballot did not provide sufficient detail regarding the nature of the proposed action and the changes to workplace conditions that the employees were protesting. Additionally, the court held that the company had not adequately facilitated the ballot process, as required by the Act. The court emphasised the importance of clear communication and cooperation between employers and unions when conducting a ballot for protected action. Based on these findings, the court ruled in favour of the company and prohibited the proposed ballot from proceeding.

Given the court's findings, the Australian Workers' Union was unable to proceed with the proposed ballot as it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The court's decision reinforced the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 when organising industrial action. The final orders of the court prohibited the union from conducting the proposed ballot and emphasised the need for both parties to engage in good faith negotiations to address the employees' concerns regarding changes to workplace conditions. This case serves as a reminder of the strict legal framework governing industrial action in Australia and the necessity for compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

The Australian Workers' Union v Monadelphous Engineering 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