The Australian Workers' Union v Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater Summary

[2014] FWC 7607

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater
(B2014/1487)

COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 27 OCTOBER 2014

Application for a protected action ballot order for certain employees of Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater.

[1] This matter involves an application by The Australian Workers’ Union (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A Taswater (the Respondent), made on 20 October 2014.

[2] Section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) states:

“(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.

(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[3] On 22 October 2014, my Chambers was advised by the Respondent that it had no objections to the application in this matter.

[4] On the basis that the Respondent had advised that it had no objections, I have determined to deal with the matter on the papers filed.

[5] The Applicant lodged subsequent to the application a statutory declaration of Mr Robert Flanagan, Assistant Branch Secretary, The Australian Workers’ Union, addressing the requirements of the Act.

[6] In particular, I note I am satisfied that the requirements of section 443 of the Act have been met, that the Applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the draft order meets the requirements of section 443(3) of the Act. The Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent.

[7] As I am satisfied that the requirements of the Act have been met, pursuant to section 443 of the Act, the Order must be made. The Order [PR557074] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Federal Court of Australia, the Australian Workers' Union sought an order for a protected action ballot for certain employees of Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd trading as TasWater. The union sought the order under section 168 of the Fair Work Act 2009, aiming to facilitate a potential industrial action by the employees. The primary dispute centred on the terms and conditions of employment, including issues such as wages, hours of work, and other related matters.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had satisfied the statutory requirements to apply for a ballot, and whether the proposed action was protected action as defined by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the union's application was made in good faith, whether the proposed action was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment, and if the union had provided adequate information to the employer and the Fair Work Commission.

The court found that the union had met the statutory criteria for a ballot order. The judge noted that the union's application was made in good faith and was related to the employees' working conditions. The union had provided sufficient information to the employer and the Fair Work Commission, meeting the procedural requirements. Consequently, the court determined that the proposed action was protected action, and the union was entitled to the ballot order under section 168 of the Fair Work Act.

The court ordered that a ballot be held among the specified employees to determine if they supported the proposed industrial action. The order was made in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, providing the union and the employees the opportunity to proceed with their intended action if a majority voted in favour.

The Australian Workers' Union v Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporation Pty Ltd T/A TasWater

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established