DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd
(B2018/136)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 5 MARCH 2018

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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 5 March 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 C Wright 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 PR600854.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union filed a case against PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around the Union's proposed ballot for protected action by the employees of PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd. The Union sought an order that would allow it to conduct a ballot of the employees for the purpose of protected action. The company opposed the ballot, arguing that it was unnecessary and that the Union had not provided sufficient justification for the proposed action.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the proposed ballot was necessary and whether the Union had adequately demonstrated that the employees' interests could not be effectively protected without the proposed action. The court also needed to assess the proportionality of the proposed action in relation to the issues at hand. Additionally, the court had to determine if the Union had complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court found that the Union had not provided sufficient evidence to justify the necessity of the proposed ballot. The court concluded that the Union had not demonstrated that the employees' interests could not be effectively protected through other means, such as negotiation or existing dispute resolution mechanisms. The court further determined that the proposed action was not proportionate to the issues at hand, as the Union had not shown that the action was the least disruptive means of achieving its objectives. The court also found that the Union had not complied with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to the proposed ballot. Consequently, the court dismissed the Union's application and refused the order sought.

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