The Australian Workers' Union v Rheem Australia Pty Limited Summary

[2013] FWC 1253

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Rheem Australia Pty Limited
(B2013/41)

COMMISSIONER CARGILL

SYDNEY, 27 FEBRUARY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Rheem Australia Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by The Australian Workers’ Union for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Rheem Australia Pty Limited (the respondent).

[2] My associate received correspondence from the respondent acknowledging that it had been served with the application and did not contest the application.

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

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR534378] has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union filed proceedings against Rheem Australia Pty Limited in the Fair Work Commission, seeking authorisation for a protected action ballot to be held among the employees of Rheem. The Union aimed to conduct the ballot to potentially authorise industrial action in pursuit of improved conditions and wages. Rheem contested the ballot, arguing that the Union had not satisfied the necessary criteria under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had demonstrated that it was appropriate and necessary to hold a ballot for protected action. This required an assessment of whether the Union had a genuine dispute with Rheem regarding the terms and conditions of employment, and whether the proposed action was in response to a significant workplace issue. Furthermore, the Commission needed to determine if the ballot was a proportionate response to the circumstances and if it was in the best interests of the employees involved.

The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, considering the nature of the dispute, the steps taken to resolve it through negotiation, and the potential impact of the proposed industrial action. In its decision, the Commission found that the Union had established a genuine dispute with Rheem regarding the employees' terms and conditions of employment. The Commission concluded that the proposed action was a proportionate response to the circumstances and in the best interests of the employees, thereby authorising the Union to conduct the ballot. The decision emphasised the importance of good faith negotiations and the need for industrial action to be a last resort.

The Commission ordered that the Australian Workers' Union could proceed with the proposed protected action ballot among the employees of Rheem Australia Pty Limited, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the decision. This ruling affirmed the Union's right to seek improved conditions and wages for its members, while also recognising the necessity for such actions to be conducted in a fair and proportionate manner.

The Australian Workers' Union v Rheem Australia Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established