DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd
(B2020/430)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 AUGUST 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Coles Group Supply Chain 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 Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 11 August 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 Mr R Payne 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 PR721764.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in United Workers' Union v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd involved the union's proposed ballot of employees regarding protected industrial action. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the federal workplace relations tribunal. The union sought to ballot employees about potential industrial action to address various workplace issues, including pay rates and conditions. Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd, however, opposed the ballot on several grounds, including the assertion that it was not the appropriate employer to conduct the ballot as it did not directly employ all the workers in question.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had correctly identified Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd as the employer under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the ballot notice was appropriately tailored to the specific workplace circumstances. The central question was whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to mandate a ballot when the employer argued it was not the appropriate entity for such an action. The Commission also needed to consider the procedural fairness and the appropriateness of the ballot notice provided by the union.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd was indeed the appropriate employer for the purposes of the proposed ballot. The Commission ruled that the union had correctly identified the employer and that the ballot notice was sufficiently tailored to the specific workplace conditions. The Commission emphasised that the employer's role in the supply chain and its control over the working conditions justified its inclusion in the ballot process. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the employer's objections and upheld the union's right to conduct the ballot. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of correctly identifying the employer and ensuring that the ballot notice appropriately addresses the workplace issues at stake.

The final orders of the Commission mandated that Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd facilitate the union's proposed ballot of its employees. The employer was directed to provide necessary information and resources to enable the union to conduct the ballot as planned. The decision reinforced the legal framework governing industrial action in Australia, affirming the union's rights while also ensuring that employers are appropriately identified and involved in the process.

United Workers' Union v Coles Group Supply Chain 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