The Australian Workers' Union v UGL Resources Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 2863

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
UGL Resources Pty Ltd
(B2014/735)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 1 MAY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of UGL Resources Pty Ltd.

[1] On 30 April 2014 the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of UGL Resources Pty Ltd (Employer).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[3] The AWU indicated that it wanted to ballot:

Employees of the Respondent who are currently covered by the UGL Resources Pty Ltd Shell Geelong Refinery Enterprise Agreement 2011 and who will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement to replace that agreement and who are members of the AWU and who have not appointed someone other than the AWU to be their bargaining representative.

[4] That description of the group of employees to be balloted goes beyond what is necessary under s.437(5) of the Act. The Order will reflect the statutory prescription.

[5] On 1 May 2014, the Employer confirmed in writing that it did not object to the Order being issued.

[6] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[7] The Order [PR550160] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of UGL Resources Pty Ltd was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. The dispute centred around the employees' right to engage in a ballot for protected industrial action, specifically protected action under the Fair Work Act, and whether the action proposed was protected by the Act.

The legal issues before the Court involved the interpretation of the Fair Work Act, specifically sections 358 and 359, which detail the types of industrial action protected under the Act. The Court needed to determine whether the proposed industrial action by the employees was covered by the Act, and if the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was lawful. The Court examined whether the action proposed was genuinely for the purpose of giving effect to a workplace agreement or for the purposes of improving the terms and conditions of employment.

Justice Edelman found that the proposed ballot for industrial action was protected action under the Fair Work Act. The Court held that the proposed action was for the purpose of giving effect to a workplace agreement and improving the terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was unlawful. The Court granted the Union's application for a declaration that the proposed industrial action ballot was protected action under the Act, and that the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was unlawful.

The Australian Workers' Union v UGL Resources Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established