DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipeline Products
(B2019/653)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 12 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rocla Pty Ltd T/As Rocla Pipeline Products.

[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 12 August 2019, 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 Dave Swan 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 PR711242.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union contested the proposed industrial action of employees of Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipeline Products. The Union sought a declaration that the employer's notice of proposed protected action was invalid and sought an injunction restraining the employer from taking industrial action. The Fair Work Commission was the court involved. The Union argued that the employer had failed to provide sufficient particulars of the proposed industrial action and that the ballot of the employees was invalid. The employer argued that the ballot was valid and that the Union's application should be dismissed.

The Commission found that the employer had failed to provide sufficient particulars of the proposed industrial action and that the ballot was therefore invalid. The employer had not provided information on the nature of the industrial action, the date on which it would commence, the duration of the industrial action, and the effect of the industrial action on the employer's operations. The employer had also not provided information on the period of time during which employees would be asked to participate in the industrial action. The Commission found that the employer's failure to provide sufficient particulars meant that employees could not make an informed decision on whether to participate in the industrial action. The Union's application was therefore successful.

The employer was restrained from taking industrial action and the ballot was declared invalid. The employer was ordered to provide the Union with the particulars of the proposed industrial action within seven days. If the employer failed to do so, the Union could apply to the Commission for further orders. The employer was also ordered to pay the Union's costs of the application.

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