DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Austco Polar Cold Storage Pty Ltd
(B2020/152)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 16 MARCH 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Austco Polar Cold Storage Pty Ltd.

[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 Austco Polar Cold Storage Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 16 March 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 Ms H Miflin 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 PR717517.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought an order to facilitate a proposed ballot of employees of Austco Polar Cold Storage Pty Ltd regarding protected industrial action. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Union argued that the company had not provided sufficient information to allow employees to make an informed decision regarding the proposed protected action.

The central legal issues in the case involved the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 for employers to provide information to employees to facilitate a ballot on protected action and the court's jurisdiction to order the employer to provide that information. The Union contended that Austco had failed to provide the necessary information, while Austco argued that the Union's request was premature and that it had already provided sufficient information.

The court found that the Union had established that the employer had not provided all the information necessary for the employees to make an informed decision. It also found that the Union had demonstrated a genuine intention to hold a lawful ballot. The court further held that it had jurisdiction to order the employer to provide the information. Consequently, the court made an order requiring Austco to provide the Union with the information necessary to conduct the ballot. This included details about the company's financial position, the impact of the proposed action on the business, and the reasons for the proposed action. The court also ordered that the employer pay the Union's costs of the proceeding.

United Workers' Union v Austco Polar Cold Storage Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established