DECISION

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

United Workers' Union
v
Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle
(B2020/503)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 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 T/A Allied Pinnacle (Respondent).

[2] On 2 September 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 declaration of Mr L Papanastasiou 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 PR722421.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide whether United Workers' Union should be allowed to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited, trading as Allied Pinnacle. The Union sought to conduct the ballot to organise the employees for potential protected action, including strike action. Allied Pinnacle opposed the ballot, arguing it was not reasonably required.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed protected action ballot was reasonably required. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to organise employees for potential industrial action to address workplace issues. Allied Pinnacle contended that the ballot was not reasonably required as there were no immediate issues requiring resolution through industrial action, and the ballot might cause unnecessary disruption to the business.

The Commission examined the circumstances and concluded that the proposed ballot was reasonably required. The Union had provided evidence of workplace issues that could justify protected action, and there was no evidence to suggest that the ballot would cause significant disruption. The Commission found that the potential benefits of the ballot, in terms of organising employees for potential action, outweighed any potential harm to the business.

The Commission ordered that the Union be allowed to conduct the proposed protected action ballot among the employees of Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited. The decision emphasised the importance of allowing unions to organise employees for potential industrial action, subject to the reasonable requirements test. The decision also highlighted the need for employers to engage with employees and their unions to address workplace issues and avoid the need for protected action.

United Workers' Union v Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established