DECISION

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

United Workers' Union
v
Bridgestone Australia Ltd T/A Bridgestone
(B2020/601)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bridgestone Australia 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 Bridgestone Australia Ltd T/A Bridgestone (Respondent).

[2] On 8 October 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 Ms G Kavanagh 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] The Applicant also sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS). Mr Michael M Michael, the Managing Director of CiVs has provided a statutory declaration setting out that he would carry out the functions of the protected ballot agent for CiVS, and that he has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. I am satisfied that CiVS is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Michael and CiVS are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVs has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and Mr Michael and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

[6] Therefore I appoint CiVS as the protected action ballot agent.

[7] An order has been separately issued in PR723409.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the United Workers' Union sought to hold a protected action ballot among employees of Bridgestone Australia Ltd, trading as Bridgestone, to determine if they would support industrial action. Bridgestone opposed the ballot, claiming it would cause significant harm to its business and reputation. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed industrial action was protected and whether a ballot should proceed.

The legal issues centred on whether the proposed industrial action was in relation to a "workplace matter," as defined in the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the Commission had to assess whether the proposed action met the criteria for a protected action ballot, including whether the action was lawful and whether it was in response to an employer's adverse action. The parties also disputed whether the potential harm to Bridgestone's business and reputation would outweigh the union's right to hold a ballot.

The Commission found that the proposed industrial action related to a workplace matter and was therefore protected. It held that the union's intention to hold the ballot was lawful and that the proposed action was in response to an employer's adverse action. However, the Commission also considered the potential harm to Bridgestone's business and reputation. Ultimately, the Commission determined that the potential harm did not outweigh the union's right to hold a ballot. Consequently, the Commission ordered that the ballot proceed as proposed.

United Workers' Union v Bridgestone Australia Ltd T/A Bridgestone

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established