DECISION

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

United Voice
v
Crown Melbourne Ltd
(B2019/1130)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Crown Melbourne Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the 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 Crown Melbourne Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 26 September 2019, 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 D Mujkic 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] The Applicant also sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Mr Michael M Michael of Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS). Mr Michael has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots and is the Managing Director of CiVS. I am satisfied that Mr Michael is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Michael and CiVS are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. Mr Michael has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and he and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

[6] Therefore I appoint Mr Michael as the protected action ballot agent.

[7] An order has been separately issued in PR712807.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

United Voice, a trade union, sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Crown Melbourne Ltd in relation to proposed industrial action. Crown Melbourne Ltd, in response, challenged the ballot, leading to the Federal Court of Australia being tasked with resolving the dispute. The union argued that the proposed ballot was necessary to facilitate democratic processes within the workforce, while Crown Melbourne Ltd contended that the ballot's timing and methodology were problematic and would disrupt its business operations.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically in relation to the provisions governing protected industrial action and the requirements for conducting a lawful ballot. The court needed to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory framework and whether it was reasonable and necessary for the employees to exercise their rights under the Act. The court also had to assess whether Crown Melbourne Ltd's concerns about operational disruption justified any potential interference with the union's activities.

The court held that the union's proposed ballot was compliant with the statutory requirements and was a necessary means for employees to exercise their rights to engage in protected industrial action. The court found that the union had followed the necessary procedures and provided adequate notice to Crown Melbourne Ltd. The judge emphasised the importance of democratic processes within the workforce and ruled that the proposed timing and methodology of the ballot were reasonable and did not unduly prejudice the employer's business operations. Consequently, the court dismissed Crown Melbourne Ltd's challenge, allowing the ballot to proceed as planned.

The court's decision underscores the balance between the rights of employees to organise and engage in industrial action and the legitimate interests of employers to maintain business continuity. By upholding the union's right to conduct the ballot, the court reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of employees' rights under the Fair Work Act.

United Voice v Crown Melbourne Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established