DECISION

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

United Voice
v
PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited
(B2017/468)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 JUNE 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited.

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

[2] On 8 June 2017 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 B Shanahan 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 PR593635.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Voice versus PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's industrial relations tribunal. United Voice, a trade union, sought to conduct a ballot of employees of PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited to ascertain whether they supported industrial action in pursuit of their demands. PPG Industries opposed the ballot, arguing that it would disrupt its business operations and that the union had not provided sufficient detail regarding the nature of the proposed industrial action.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the union's proposed ballot constituted protected action and if PPG Industries' opposition was justified. The Commission needed to determine if the union had provided adequate information about the proposed industrial action and whether PPG Industries had demonstrated that the ballot would cause significant harm to its business operations.

The Commission found that United Voice had provided sufficient information about the proposed industrial action, as the details were consistent with what was reasonably required. The union had outlined the nature of the proposed action, the reasons for it, and the likely impact on employees and the company. PPG Industries, on the other hand, had not demonstrated that the ballot would cause significant harm to its business operations. The Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was not likely to cause significant harm, and therefore, the union was entitled to conduct it.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that United Voice could proceed with the proposed ballot of PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited employees. The decision highlighted the importance of providing adequate information about proposed industrial action and the threshold for a company to successfully oppose a ballot.

United Voice v PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established