DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipeline Products
(B2019/1155)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 OCTOBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rocla 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 Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipeline Products (Respondent).

[2] On 3 October 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent does 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 Dominic Mark Minns James 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 PR713001.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought an injunction to prevent Rocla Pty Ltd from holding a ballot of its employees regarding potential protected action. The dispute arose in the Fair Work Commission, with the Union arguing that the ballot was not genuinely intended to determine employee views on protected action, but rather to pressure employees into voting against such action. Rocla contended that the ballot was a genuine attempt to ascertain the views of its employees on the proposed industrial action.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot was genuinely intended to determine the views of the employees, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that the ballot was a sham, designed to intimidate employees rather than genuinely seeking their views. Rocla argued that the ballot was a legitimate exercise of its right to seek information on employee views.

The Fair Work Commission found that the ballot was not genuinely intended to determine employee views on protected action. The Commission noted that Rocla had a history of anti-union conduct and had not provided employees with adequate information to make an informed decision. The Commission held that the ballot was designed to pressure employees into voting against protected action, and therefore did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission granted the Union's application for an injunction, preventing Rocla from holding the ballot.

The Commission ordered Rocla to take steps to rectify its conduct, including providing employees with accurate and balanced information about the proposed industrial action. The Commission also ordered Rocla to refrain from any further conduct that could be seen as coercive or intimidating towards employees.

The Australian Workers' Union v Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipeline Products

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established