DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd
(B2020/475)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd

[1] This is an application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (NSW Branch) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 31 August 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Daryll Elliott of the Applicant declared on 25 August 2020, 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 PR722367.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court heard a dispute between the Transport Workers' Union of Australia and SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd. The Union sought to conduct a ballot among SUEZ employees to determine if they wished to engage in protected industrial action. SUEZ opposed the ballot, claiming it was not necessary and would be prejudicial to their business. The court was tasked with determining the validity and necessity of the proposed ballot and whether it could proceed.

The court considered whether the ballot was necessary and whether it would cause significant harm to SUEZ. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to gauge employee support for potential industrial action, while SUEZ contended that the ballot was not necessary as the Union already had sufficient evidence of employee dissatisfaction. The court examined the legal requirements for protected action ballots under the Fair Work Act and assessed the potential impact of the ballot on SUEZ's operations.

In its decision, the court found that the proposed ballot was necessary as it was a reasonable step to ascertain the level of support for potential industrial action. The court also determined that the potential harm to SUEZ's business, while significant, was not sufficient to warrant prohibiting the ballot. The court held that the necessity of the ballot outweighed the potential harm to SUEZ's operations. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Union, allowing the ballot to proceed.

The court ordered that the Transport Workers' Union of Australia could proceed with the proposed ballot of SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Pty Ltd employees. The court's decision was based on the necessity of the ballot to determine employee support for potential industrial action and the conclusion that the potential harm to SUEZ's business was not sufficient to prohibit the ballot. The court's ruling allowed the Union to gauge employee sentiment and proceed with any subsequent industrial action, subject to the outcome of the ballot.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v SUEZ Recycling & Recovery 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