DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Bridgestone Australia Ltd
(B2020/389)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 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 (Respondent).

[2] On 22 July 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 L Dillon 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 PR721216.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union, on behalf of its members who are employees of Bridgestone Australia Ltd, sought to conduct a ballot of its members to determine whether they would support protected industrial action. Bridgestone Australia Ltd contested the ballot, asserting that it did not comply with certain statutory requirements. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the ballot process.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the ballot notice provided to employees contained all the necessary information as required by the Act. Bridgestone argued that the ballot notice was deficient as it did not include details about the potential impact of the industrial action on the business, nor did it provide information about alternative dispute resolution processes.

The court found that the ballot notice did not meet the statutory requirements as it failed to include information regarding the potential impact of the industrial action on the business and alternative dispute resolution processes. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees have all the necessary information to make an informed decision about supporting industrial action. Consequently, the court declared the ballot invalid, as it did not comply with the statutory obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009.

United Workers' Union v Bridgestone Australia Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established