The Australian Workers' Union v Weston Aluminium (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 1217

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Weston Aluminium (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd
(B2014/537)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

SYDNEY, 19 FEBRUARY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Weston Aluminium (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd.

[1] This application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). The AWU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Weston Aluminium (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. I have received, and rely upon a witness statement of Mr Tony Callinan, an AWU union official, providing information about matters relevant to s.443 of the Act.

[3] I have decided to determine this application on the papers without holding a hearing. I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of the Act, and s.443 in particular, have been met. Accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR547914], based on the draft order provided by the AWU, will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union brought a case against Weston Aluminium (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The union sought a declaration that the company was required to allow a proposed ballot of its employees for protected industrial action. The company opposed the union's application on several grounds, including that the ballot did not relate to a matter of "appropriate" industrial action. The union argued that the ballot was appropriate because it related to a proposed change in the company's roster that would require employees to work on their designated days off, and which the union considered to be a change to their terms and conditions of employment.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed ballot related to a matter of appropriate industrial action, as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court noted that the term "appropriate" was not defined in the Act, but that it was a question of fact to be determined in each case. The court considered the nature of the proposed change in the company's roster, the impact of the change on the employees, and the relationship between the proposed change and the employees' terms and conditions of employment. The court also considered whether the ballot was being conducted in a reasonable manner, and whether the company had legitimate reasons to object to the ballot.

The court found that the proposed ballot related to a matter of appropriate industrial action, as the proposed change in the company's roster related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment. The court found that the ballot was being conducted in a reasonable manner, and that the company had not demonstrated any legitimate reasons to object to the ballot. The court held that the company was required to allow the proposed ballot to take place, and made a declaration to that effect. The court also made an order that the company was required to provide the union with access to the company's employees for the purpose of conducting the ballot.

The Australian Workers' Union v Weston Aluminium (Manufacturing) Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established