The Australian Workers' Union v OneSteel Wire Pty Limited

[2014] FWC 8087

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
OneSteel Wire Pty Limited
(B2014/1583)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 13 NOVEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of One Steel 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 Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 12November 2014.

[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 signed by Gavin 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

The Australian Workers' Union, on behalf of its members employed by OneSteel Wire Pty Limited, brought a case before the Federal Court of Australia seeking approval for a proposed protected action ballot of the employees. The dispute arose from disagreements regarding the terms and conditions of employment, specifically related to proposed changes in the employees' working conditions and remuneration. OneSteel Wire Pty Limited opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not necessary and would disrupt business operations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed industrial action was necessary and if the ballot could proceed. The court had to consider the union's right to organise and the employer's rights to conduct its business without undue interference. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate whether the proposed action was protected under the relevant industrial relations laws and if the requirements for a protected action ballot were met.

The Federal Court found that the proposed action was necessary and that the ballot could proceed. The court acknowledged the union's right to organise and the importance of protected industrial action in the pursuit of fair terms and conditions of employment. The court determined that the employees' concerns were legitimate and that the proposed action was within the scope of protected industrial action. Consequently, the court granted the union's application for the ballot to proceed, affirming the importance of the right to organise and the role of protected action in the industrial relations landscape.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established