DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Accolade Wines Australia Limited T/A Accolade Wines
(B2021/573)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 22 JULY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Accolade Wines Australia Limited T/A Accolade Wines.

[1] This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Accolade Wines Australia Limited T/A Accolade Wines (Respondent).

[2] On 22 July 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[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 declaration of Mr Ben Reichstein 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 PR732016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission was a dispute between the United Workers' Union and Accolade Wines Australia Limited T/A Accolade Wines. The Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot of its members, who were employees of Accolade Wines, to potentially undertake industrial action. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to address ongoing workplace issues, while Accolade Wines contested the ballot's validity and necessity. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the Union's proposed ballot complied with the relevant legislative provisions.

The primary legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the Union's proposed ballot met the statutory criteria for a protected action ballot as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to assess whether the ballot was reasonably likely to achieve a legitimate industrial objective and whether the Union had followed the necessary procedural requirements. The Commission also considered whether Accolade Wines had acted in bad faith or had otherwise interfered with the Union's rights to organise its members.

In delivering its decision, the Commission held that the Union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements. The Commission found that the ballot was reasonably likely to achieve a legitimate industrial objective, as the employees had raised concerns about workplace conditions and treatment. The Commission also determined that the Union had followed the necessary procedural steps in proposing the ballot. Regarding Accolade Wines' conduct, the Commission found no evidence of bad faith or interference with the Union's rights. Consequently, the Commission authorised the Union to proceed with the proposed ballot.

The Commission's final orders included granting the Union's application to conduct the protected action ballot, with specific directions provided to ensure the ballot's proper conduct. The Commission also ordered Accolade Wines to facilitate the ballot process and to provide necessary information to the Union and its members. The decision underscored the importance of following legal procedures in organising and conducting industrial action, while also recognising the rights of both employers and employees in the workplace.

United Workers' Union v Accolade Wines Australia Limited T/A Accolade Wines

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established