United Workers' Union v DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2021] FWC 6560

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2021/1195)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 9 DECEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd

[1] This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 8 December 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Jonathon Dixon of the Applicant declared on 3 December 2021, 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 PR736585.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the United Workers' Union sought approval for a proposed ballot of employees of DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd regarding protected action. The dispute centred on the union's request to conduct the ballot and whether it complied with the necessary statutory requirements. The Commission was tasked with determining the legitimacy of the union's application and the procedural fairness of the proposed ballot process.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the union's application met the criteria set out in the Fair Work Act and whether the proposed ballot process was fair and lawful. The Commission examined the union's compliance with the procedural requirements, including the adequacy of the information provided to the employees, the timing of the ballot, and whether the ballot was necessary and reasonable. Additionally, the Commission considered whether DHL had any objections to the proposed ballot and the implications of such objections.

The Commission concluded that the union's application complied with the statutory requirements and that the proposed ballot process was fair. The union had provided sufficient information to the employees and had demonstrated that the ballot was necessary and reasonable. The Commission found that DHL had not raised any valid objections to the proposed ballot, and therefore, the application was approved. The Commission's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the legal framework governing protected action ballots.

The Commission approved the union's application for a ballot of the employees of DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd regarding protected action. The Commission's decision was based on the union's compliance with the statutory requirements and the fairness of the proposed ballot process. The Commission found that the union had provided adequate information to the employees and that the ballot was necessary and reasonable. The decision provides clarity for both the union and the employer regarding the procedures to be followed in the event of a proposed ballot of employees for protected action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established