United Voice v Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited

[2018] FWC 1245

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Voice

Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited

(B2018/127)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited.

This is an application by United Voice (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 28 February 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr S Ong 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR600771.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of United Voice and Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited, the Federal Court was called upon to determine whether the proposed industrial action by the employees of Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited was protected action. The dispute centred around the employees' intention to conduct a ballot to determine the support for a potential strike. United Voice, an industrial union, sought a declaration that the proposed ballot would constitute protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited contested the assertion, arguing that the ballot did not meet the criteria for protected action as it did not concern a dispute with the employer and was not intended to be part of a series of actions.

The court was required to examine whether the proposed ballot related to a workplace dispute and whether it was a step in a series of actions or steps in relation to that dispute. The central issue was whether the ballot, as proposed, was a bona fide attempt to engage in protected action under the Fair Work Act. The court needed to consider whether the ballot was a genuine step towards a series of actions designed to enforce a claim or give effect to a demand in relation to a workplace dispute. The court had to balance the rights of the employees to engage in industrial action with the potential impact on the employer's business operations.

The court found that the proposed ballot did indeed relate to a workplace dispute and was a step in a series of actions designed to enforce a claim or give effect to a demand in relation to that dispute. The ballot was considered a bona fide attempt to engage in protected action under the Fair Work Act. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees have the right to organise and take collective action to improve their working conditions, subject to the provisions of the Act. By declaring the proposed ballot as protected action, the court affirmed the balance between the rights of employees to engage in industrial action and the need to protect the interests of employers.

The court's final orders included a declaration that the proposed ballot of employees of Castlemaine Perkins Pty Limited was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness in industrial disputes and the need for a balanced approach in upholding the rights of both employees and employers.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established