DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Suez Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd T/A Suez
(B2021/583)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Suez Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd T/A Suez.

[1] This is an application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Suez Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd T/A Suez (Respondent).

[2] On 23 July 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Anthony Goddard of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, 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 PR732099.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between the Transport Workers' Union of Australia and Suez Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd T/A Suez, which involved a dispute over a proposed protected action ballot of Suez's employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia. The Transport Workers' Union sought to conduct a ballot to determine whether Suez employees were willing to take protected action, including a strike, in response to disputes over workplace conditions. Suez, on the other hand, challenged the union's right to conduct the ballot, arguing that it was not properly registered and that the union did not have the required majority support of Suez employees.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had the authority to conduct the proposed ballot, and if it had the requisite majority support of Suez employees. The court examined the requirements for a union to conduct a protected action ballot, including the need for the union to be registered under the Fair Work Act 2009 and to have the support of a majority of employees in the relevant bargaining unit. The court also considered whether the union had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the ballot was conducted in accordance with the law.

The court found that the union had not taken reasonable steps to ensure that the ballot was conducted in accordance with the law, as it had not obtained the required majority support of Suez employees. The court also found that the union had not properly registered the ballot, as it had not provided the necessary information to the Fair Work Commission. As a result, the court ruled that the union did not have the authority to conduct the proposed ballot. The court ordered that the union cease and desist from conducting the ballot and take all necessary steps to ensure that it complied with the law in the future.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of unions following the proper procedures when seeking to conduct a protected action ballot. The court emphasised that unions must ensure that they have the necessary majority support of employees and that they properly register the ballot with the Fair Work Commission. Failure to do so can result in the union being unable to conduct the ballot and facing potential legal consequences.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Suez Recycling and Recovery Pty Ltd T/A Suez

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established