The Australian Workers' Union v The Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 7127

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
The Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd
(B2014/1444)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of The Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of The Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 7 October 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(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.

[4] The AWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by Liam O’Brien, Assistant Victorian Secretary of the AWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union initiated proceedings against The Australian Steel Company (Operations) Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, seeking approval for a proposed protected action ballot among the employees. The union aimed to conduct the ballot to explore the employees' willingness to engage in industrial action, such as strikes or stoppages, to address unresolved pay and working conditions disputes. The Steel Company opposed the ballot, arguing that it would cause significant operational disruptions and financial harm, and that the union had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of unresolved disputes warranting industrial action.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had established a genuine dispute justifying the proposed industrial action, and if the potential benefits to the employees outweighed the possible detriment to the company's operations. The Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the union's submissions on the nature and extent of the unresolved disputes, and the company's arguments regarding the potential impact of the industrial action on its business. The Commission also considered the statutory criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009, which governs protected industrial action.

After thorough deliberation, the Commission determined that the union had presented sufficient evidence of genuine unresolved disputes concerning pay and working conditions. The Commission acknowledged the potential operational disruptions and financial harm to the company but found that the employees' interests in resolving these disputes outweighed the company's concerns. Consequently, the Commission approved the union's proposed protected action ballot, allowing the employees to vote on whether to proceed with industrial action.

The Commission ordered that the union could proceed with the proposed ballot, subject to specific conditions to minimise potential operational disruptions and financial harm to the company. The union was required to provide the company with detailed information about the ballot's timing and nature, and the company was directed to facilitate the ballot's conduct in a manner that would cause minimal disruption to its operations. The Commission's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in protected industrial action with the need to protect the interests of employers and the broader community.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established