DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Country Road Group Logistics
(B2021/439)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 JUNE 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Country Road Group Logistics.

[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 Country Road Group Logistics (Respondent).

[2] On 21 June 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 Mick Power 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 PR730909.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought a declaration that the Country Road Group Logistics' proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected action was unlawful. The Fair Work Commission was asked to make an order preventing the company from proceeding with the ballot, and for compensation for the employees. The dispute arose from the Union's claim that the ballot was not genuinely related to a workplace dispute, and was instead a tactic to undermine the Union's position.

The primary issue before the court was whether the ballot was genuinely related to a workplace dispute. This required the court to consider the purpose and nature of the proposed action, as well as the timing and circumstances of the ballot. The Union argued that the ballot was a tactic to undermine the Union's position, and was not genuinely related to a workplace dispute. The company, on the other hand, argued that the ballot was a genuine attempt to resolve a workplace dispute.

The court found that the ballot was not genuinely related to a workplace dispute, and was instead a tactic to undermine the Union's position. The court noted that the ballot was conducted in a manner that was likely to cause confusion and uncertainty among the employees, and that the timing of the ballot was designed to coincide with a period of industrial action. The court also found that the company had not provided sufficient information to the employees to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to support the proposed action. The court ordered that the ballot be stopped, and that the company pay compensation to the employees.

United Workers' Union v Country Road Group Logistics

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established