DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd
(B2021/1035)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 26 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Pharmaceutical Industries 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 Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 26 October 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 Daniel Peatey 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 PR735262.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Workers' Union versus Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the dispute arose when the United Workers' Union sought to conduct a ballot among the employees of Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd regarding potential protected action. The matter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the legality and procedural correctness of the proposed ballot. The central legal issue revolved around whether the union had properly followed the relevant industrial relations laws in proposing the ballot and whether the ballot itself complied with the necessary statutory requirements.

The court examined the procedural aspects of the ballot, including whether the union had provided sufficient information to the employees and whether the ballot was conducted in a manner that adhered to the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the court considered whether the union had adhered to the timelines and formalities prescribed by the legislation in proposing the ballot. The union argued that they had fulfilled all necessary requirements, while the employer contested the validity of the process and sought an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding.

After careful consideration of the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the union had not complied with all the statutory requirements necessary for a lawful ballot. The court highlighted specific procedural deficiencies in the union's approach, including inadequate information provided to the employees and procedural missteps that undermined the validity of the ballot. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the employer, granting an injunction to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to industrial relations laws in the conduct of protected actions and the consequences of failing to comply with statutory requirements.

United Workers' Union v Australian Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established