DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
OneSteel Wire Pty Limited
(B2015/467)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 23 APRIL 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of OneSteel Wire Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of OneSteel Wire Pty Limited (the Respondent). The application was made on 22 April 2015.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement made by Mr G. Penn, an Official of the AWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The Australian Workers' Union versus OneSteel Wire Pty Limited, the Federal Court of Australia addressed the legality of a proposed ballot for protected action by employees of OneSteel Wire Pty Limited. The Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot, but OneSteel Wire Pty Limited opposed the ballot, arguing it was not in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the procedural requirements for such ballots and whether the union's proposed ballot complied with statutory provisions. The central legal issue was whether the union's ballot notice was valid and whether it met the necessary criteria for protected action under the Fair Work Act.

The court examined the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act for a protected action ballot. It considered whether the union's ballot notice was in the proper form and whether it included all necessary information as required by the statute. The union argued that its notice was adequate, while OneSteel Wire Pty Limited contended that it failed to include specific details, thus rendering it invalid. The court analysed the statutory language and case law to determine if the union's ballot notice met the legislative standards. Ultimately, the court found that the union's ballot notice did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Fair Work Act, and therefore, the proposed ballot was unlawful.

In conclusion, the Federal Court determined that the Australian Workers' Union's ballot notice did not meet the statutory criteria for a protected action ballot, and the proposed ballot was invalid. The court's decision was based on the union's failure to include all necessary information in the ballot notice as required by the Fair Work Act. As a result, the union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for protected action ballots to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act.

The Australian Workers' Union v OneSteel Wire Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established