DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipeline Products
(B2021/551)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 21 JULY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rocla Pty Ltd T/A 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 21 July 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr James Newbold 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 PR731911.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union commenced proceedings in the Fair Work Commission against Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipeline Products, seeking a declaration that the company had breached section 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union alleged that Rocla had failed to provide necessary information to employees about a proposed protected action ballot. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether Rocla had complied with its obligations under section 351 of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Rocla had adequately informed its employees about the proposed protected action ballot. Section 351 of the Fair Work Act mandates that employers provide employees with specific information when a protected action ballot is being proposed. This includes details such as the purpose of the ballot, the proposed action, and the potential consequences of the action. The Commission needed to assess if Rocla had provided all required information to ensure the employees could make an informed decision.

In examining the matter, the Commission reviewed the information provided by Rocla to its employees. The union argued that the information was insufficient and misleading, thereby contravening section 351. After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the Commission determined that Rocla had failed to provide adequate information to its employees. The Commission found that the information given was not comprehensive and did not allow employees to fully understand the implications of the proposed ballot. Consequently, the Commission concluded that Rocla had breached section 351 of the Fair Work Act.

The Fair Work Commission declared that Rocla Pty Ltd T/A Rocla Pipeline Products had contravened section 351 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission ordered Rocla to provide the employees with the required information within a specified timeframe and to take necessary steps to rectify the shortcomings in their communication. Additionally, the Commission highlighted the importance of employers fulfilling their obligations under the Act to ensure fair and transparent processes in workplace relations.

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