DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Orica Australia Pty Ltd
(B2015/146)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 9 JANUARY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Orica Australia Pty Ltd.

[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 Orica Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[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 Statutory Declaration signed by Samuel Wood, 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 filed a case against Orica Australia Pty Ltd, seeking to determine the validity of a proposed protected action ballot of the employees. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to mobilise employees in the pursuit of improved workplace conditions and remuneration.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union contended that the ballot was necessary and appropriate, given the employees' grievances regarding pay and working conditions. Conversely, Orica Australia Pty Ltd argued that the ballot was not warranted and could potentially disrupt business operations.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot was indeed necessary and appropriate, given the employees' concerns and the Union's assertions. The Commission considered the employees' right to engage in protected industrial action, as well as the potential impact on the business. Ultimately, the Commission ruled in favour of the Union and upheld the validity of the proposed ballot. The decision acknowledged the importance of protecting employees' rights to organise and advocate for improved workplace conditions, while also taking into account the potential impact on the employer's business operations. As a result, the employees were allowed to proceed with the ballot as planned.

The Australian Workers' Union v Orica 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