DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Rheem Australia Pty Limited
(B2021/972)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 13 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rheem Australia Pty Limited

[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 Rheem Australia Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 12 October 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 Massimo Gregorio of the Applicant declared on 8 October 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 PR734859.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Australian Workers' Union and Rheem Australia Pty Limited. The dispute arose from a proposed industrial action ballot of Rheem Australia's employees, which the union sought to conduct. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the legality and procedural correctness of this proposed action.

The primary legal issues for the Commission to decide were whether the ballot met the necessary legal criteria for protected industrial action and if the union had complied with all relevant procedural requirements. This included assessing whether the union had provided Rheem Australia with adequate notice and information, as well as whether the ballot itself was fairly conducted and whether it related to a genuine dispute of interest.

In its decision, the Commission found that the union had not adequately notified Rheem Australia of the proposed ballot, thus breaching the legal requirements for industrial action. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the ballot did not relate to a genuine dispute of interest. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed industrial action was not protected and was therefore unlawful. The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.

As a result of this ruling, the Commission ordered that the proposed industrial action could not proceed and that the union must cease any related activities. This decision reinforced the importance of strict adherence to legal requirements for protected industrial actions and underscored the need for unions to provide appropriate notice and information to employers.

The Australian Workers' Union v Rheem Australia 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