DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd
(B2021/1064)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 NOVEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 5 November 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Cameron Wright of the Applicant declared on 3 November 2021, 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 PR735561.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought to hold a proposed protected action ballot of the employees of PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd, an employer in the mining industry. The Union was denied access to the workplace to conduct the ballot by PPK. The dispute came before the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the Union's right to hold the ballot was lawful and whether the employer's refusal to allow the Union to access the workplace was justified. The Commission found that the Union's right to hold the ballot was lawful, but that the employer's refusal to allow access to the workplace was not justified.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the employer's refusal to allow the Union to access the workplace to hold the ballot was lawful. The Union argued that the employer's refusal was unjustified and in breach of the Fair Work Act. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the Union's proposed ballot was not lawful and that it had legitimate reasons for refusing access to the workplace. The Commission found that the Union's right to hold the ballot was lawful and that the employer's refusal to allow access to the workplace was not justified. The Commission found that the employer had not demonstrated any legitimate reason for refusing access to the workplace and that the Union's proposed ballot was a lawful activity.

The Commission's reasoning was based on the provisions of the Fair Work Act, which provide for the protection of lawful industrial action. The Commission found that the Union's proposed ballot was a lawful activity and that the employer had not demonstrated any legitimate reason for refusing access to the workplace. The Commission found that the employer's refusal to allow access to the workplace was not justified and that the Union's right to hold the ballot was lawful. The Commission ordered the employer to allow the Union access to the workplace to hold the ballot and to take all necessary steps to facilitate the conduct of the ballot.

The Australian Workers' Union v PPK Mining Equipment 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