DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Davey Water Products Pty Ltd
(B2021/1067)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 9 NOVEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Davey Water Products 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 Davey Water Products Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 8 November 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 Janice Wells 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 PR735571.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia presided over a case between the United Workers' Union and Davey Water Products Pty Ltd, where the union sought approval for a ballot on potential protected industrial action by employees of Davey Water Products. The company contested the union's right to conduct the ballot, citing that the union did not adequately represent the employees, thereby lacking the necessary authorisation. The dispute centred on the procedural and legal prerequisites for unions to organise ballots for protected industrial actions, particularly in relation to the union's representative status among the employees.

The court was tasked with determining whether the union had the requisite authorisation to conduct the proposed ballot, focusing on the interpretation and application of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue was whether the union held the necessary majority support among the employees to proceed with the ballot, as well as whether the union's application met the statutory requirements for authorisation. Additionally, the court examined the procedural fairness of the union's approach in seeking authorisation for the ballot.

In its reasoning, the court held that the union did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had the majority support of the employees, and therefore lacked the necessary authorisation to conduct the ballot. The court found that the union's application was deficient in meeting the statutory requirements for authorisation. As a result, the court dismissed the union's application, affirming that the union did not have the requisite majority support among the employees and was thus not authorised to proceed with the ballot. The decision underscored the importance of unions meeting legal and procedural standards when seeking to organise industrial action on behalf of employees.

The Federal Court of Australia consequently issued an order dismissing the application of the United Workers' Union to conduct a ballot for proposed protected action, and determined that the union did not have the necessary authorisation from the majority of the employees. The court's decision was grounded in the legislative framework and procedural requirements established by the Fair Work Act 2009, reflecting the importance of compliance with legal standards in industrial relations matters.

United Workers' Union v Davey Water Products 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