DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

The Australian Workers' Union - Victoria Branch
v
GB Galvanizing Service Pty Ltd
(B2016/1169)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 8 NOVEMBER 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of GB Galvanizing Service Pty Ltd.

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

[2] On 8 November 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr S. Bonica of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, 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 PR587324.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Australian Workers' Union Victoria Branch v GB Galvanizing Service Pty Ltd, the respondents sought an injunction to prevent the first respondent from holding a proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The Australian Workers' Union Victoria Branch was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed protected action ballot was authorised by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the ballot met the criteria for a protected action ballot as outlined in the legislation. The court also needed to consider whether the union's actions were in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The court held that the proposed protected action ballot was not authorised by the Fair Work Act. The court found that the ballot did not meet the criteria for a protected action ballot as it did not relate to a genuine dispute over an existing term or condition of employment. The court further held that the union's actions were not in compliance with the Fair Work Act as they were not taken in good faith and for the purpose of protecting the interests of the employees. The court therefore granted the injunction sought by the respondents.

In summary, the court granted an injunction preventing the proposed protected action ballot from proceeding. The court found that the ballot was not authorised by the Fair Work Act and that the union's actions were not in compliance with the legislation. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that protected action ballots are properly authorised and comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The Australian Workers' Union Victoria Branch v GB Galvanizing Service 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