DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Bunnings Group Limited
(B2021/728)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 27 AUGUST 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bunnings Group 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 Bunnings Group Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 27 August 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 Ms Amie Churchill 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 PR733232.

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 conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Bunnings Group Limited, a large hardware and home improvement chain. Bunnings opposed the ballot, arguing it was not authorised and potentially misleading. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and whether it was misleading.

The central legal issue was whether the union had followed the necessary procedures for conducting a protected action ballot and whether the ballot notice was misleading. The union argued that the ballot was authorised under section 384 of the Fair Work Act and that the notice was not misleading. Bunnings contended that the ballot was not authorised because it did not include all employees and that the notice was misleading by suggesting that the union had the support of a majority of employees.

The Commission found that the union had not followed the necessary procedures as it had not included all employees in the ballot and therefore it was not authorised under section 384 of the Fair Work Act. Additionally, the Commission found that the ballot notice was misleading as it implied that the union had the support of a majority of employees, which was not the case. The Commission concluded that the ballot was not authorised and was misleading, and therefore, it could not proceed.

The Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot be stopped and that the union be notified of the reasons for the decision. The union was also ordered to take steps to rectify the misleading nature of the ballot notice.

United Workers' Union v Bunnings Group Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established