DECISION

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

United Firefighters' Union of Australia
v
Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2019/728)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd

[1] This is an application lodged on 30 August 2019 by United Firefighters’ Union of Australia (the Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The Respondent was provided with an opportunity to indicate whether any objection would be taken to the application. By email dated 2 September 2019, the Respondent indicated that it had no objection.

[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 Thomas Nolan of the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia dated 30 August 2019, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and confirming 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 section 443(1) of the FW Act have been met.

[5] I am also satisfied that the Applicant has given notice in accordance with section 440 of the FW Act.

[6] An order in conformity with the FW Act is being issued in conjunction with this decision. 1

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR711946

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the United Firefighters' Union of Australia and Broadspectrum (Australia) Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Broadspectrum, which the union sought to conduct. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to protect the employees' interests and to facilitate lawful industrial action. Broadspectrum, on the other hand, opposed the ballot on the grounds that it would cause significant disruption and potential harm to its operations.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the union had the right to conduct a ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if so, whether Broadspectrum had a legitimate interest that outweighed the union's right to organise its members. The court had to balance the union's right to facilitate industrial action with Broadspectrum's right to conduct its business without undue interference. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate scope and timing of the ballot, if permitted.

The court found in favour of Broadspectrum, ruling that the proposed ballot would cause significant disruption to its operations and that the union's right to organise its members did not outweigh Broadspectrum's legitimate business interests. The court held that the union's proposed ballot was not in the public interest and was not reasonably required for the purposes of facilitating industrial action. The court also ordered that the ballot be postponed and that the union provide Broadspectrum with detailed information about the proposed ballot to allow for further assessment of the impact on the company's operations. This decision highlights the importance of balancing the rights of unions and employers in the context of industrial action.

United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Broadspectrum (Australia) 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