DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited
(B2020/325)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited.

[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 Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 22 June 2020, 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 statutory declaration of Mr M de Rooy 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 PR720415.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of United Workers' Union versus Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited, the Federal Court was tasked with determining whether a proposed protected action ballot, initiated by the United Workers' Union on behalf of its members employed by Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited, could proceed. The ballot was intended to gather employee support for a potential industrial action, including a strike, in response to ongoing workplace disputes. The central dispute arose from the Union's claim that the company had breached the Fair Work Act 2009 by failing to adequately consult with employees regarding significant changes to their working conditions and remuneration.

The court had to address several critical legal issues, including the interpretation of the term "consultation" as required by the Fair Work Act, and whether the Union had correctly identified the protected action ballot as a legitimate means to address the alleged breaches. Additionally, the court examined whether the proposed industrial action was directly related to the workplace dispute and whether it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the Act. The primary focus was on whether the Union's actions were protected under the Act and if the company's conduct warranted such a response from the employees.

In its judgment, the court found that the Union had correctly identified the need for consultation and that the company had indeed failed to adequately consult with employees, thus breaching their obligations under the Fair Work Act. The court emphasised the importance of meaningful consultation and noted that the company's failure to engage in proper discussions with employees had led to the Union's pursuit of a protected action ballot. The court concluded that the proposed industrial action was directly related to the workplace dispute and that the Union had followed the necessary procedural steps to protect the employees' rights. Consequently, the court upheld the legality of the proposed ballot, affirming that it was a legitimate means to address the breaches identified.

The court's decision allowed the ballot to proceed, giving employees the opportunity to express their support for the proposed industrial action. This ruling underscored the significance of proper consultation in the workplace and reinforced the rights of employees to seek redress through protected actions when their concerns are not adequately addressed by their employer.

United Workers' Union v Allied Pinnacle 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