DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
TAD Pty Ltd
(B2021/137)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 5 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of TAD Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of TAD Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 5 March 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 Craig Anthony Kelly 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 PR727546.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Australian Workers' Union v TAD Pty Ltd, the Australian Workers' Union sought to organise a ballot of employees of TAD Pty Ltd to determine their support for industrial action. TAD Pty Ltd contested the ballot, arguing that it would cause undue hardship and disruption to their business operations. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for resolving disputes related to workplace relations and industrial action in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot would cause undue hardship to TAD Pty Ltd, thereby justifying its refusal. The Commission considered various factors, including the potential impact on the company's operations, the extent of the proposed action, and the availability of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The Commission also examined the union's right to organise a ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and the balance between this right and the employer's right to operate a business without undue interference.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the proposed ballot would not cause undue hardship to TAD Pty Ltd. It found that the company had not demonstrated a significant risk of operational disruption or financial loss that would outweigh the union's right to organise the ballot. The Commission also noted that the union had provided assurances that it would take steps to minimise any potential disruption and that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms were available. Based on these findings, the Commission ruled in favour of the union and allowed the ballot to proceed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that TAD Pty Ltd facilitate the conduct of the proposed ballot of its employees by the Australian Workers' Union. The company was required to provide necessary logistical support and ensure that the ballot could be conducted without undue interference or disruption to its business operations. The union, in turn, was required to take reasonable steps to minimise any potential disruption and to respect the company's operational needs during the ballot process.

The Australian Workers' Union v TAD Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established