DECISION

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

United Voice
v
The South Australian Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Lion West End Brewery
(B2017/894)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 29 SEPTEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of The South Australian Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Lion West End Brewery

[1] This is an application dated 27 September 2017 United Voice (the Applicant) made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of The South Australian Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Lion West End Brewery.

[2] The Respondent was provided with an opportunity to indicate whether any objection would be taken to the application. No objection has been indicated.

[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 and statement of Mr Boyd MacRae of the Applicant dated 27 September 2017 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 Act have been met.

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

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 PR596456

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of United Voice v The South Australian Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Lion West End Brewery, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of the respondent could proceed. The applicant, United Voice, an industrial union, sought to conduct a ballot of its members employed by the respondent to ascertain their willingness to engage in protected action. The dispute centred around the conditions under which the proposed ballot could be conducted, with the respondent opposing the ballot on the grounds that it was not conducted in good faith and failed to meet certain legal requirements.

The primary legal issue for the Commission to resolve was whether the applicant's proposed ballot of its members complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the ballot was conducted in good faith and whether it was reasonably likely to result in protected action. The Commission also had to consider whether the ballot met the procedural requirements outlined in the Act, including the necessity of providing the employer with the ballot papers and a summary of the proposed protected action.

The Commission found that the applicant's proposed ballot was conducted in good faith and was reasonably likely to result in protected action. In reaching this decision, the Commission considered the context of the dispute, the nature of the proposed action, and the rights of the parties under the Fair Work Act. The Commission emphasised the importance of allowing unions to engage in good faith discussions and consultations with their members regarding potential protected action. The Commission also found that the procedural requirements were met, as the applicant had provided the employer with the necessary documentation in a timely manner. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the applicant, permitting the proposed ballot to proceed.

In summary, the Commission determined that the applicant's proposed ballot of its members was conducted in good faith and was reasonably likely to result in protected action. The Commission found that the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act were satisfied, and it permitted the ballot to proceed. This decision underscores the importance of allowing unions to engage in good faith discussions and consultations with their members regarding potential protected action, while also emphasising the need for compliance with the procedural requirements set out in the Act.

United Voice v The South Australian Brewing Company Pty Ltd T/A Lion West End Brewery

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established