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

[2021] FWC 6565

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2021/1197)

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 PR736602.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot by employees of DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd was properly initiated and not subject to invalidity. The dispute arose from the union's attempt to conduct a ballot among employees, which DHL challenged on several grounds. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 in initiating the ballot and whether the ballot was subject to invalidity due to alleged procedural flaws. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the union's notice of the ballot was sufficient in form and substance, and if the union had complied with the procedural requirements necessary for a valid ballot.

In its decision, the Commission found that the union had substantially complied with the statutory requirements for initiating a protected action ballot. The Commission held that while there were some minor deficiencies in the form of the notice, they did not render the ballot invalid. The Commission also found that the union had provided sufficient information to the employees to enable them to make an informed decision regarding the proposed industrial action. Consequently, the union's proposed ballot was deemed valid, and the Commission rejected DHL's challenge to its validity.

The Commission's final orders included a declaration that the union's proposed protected action ballot was properly initiated and not subject to invalidity, and that the union was entitled to proceed with the ballot as planned. The Commission did not impose any additional conditions on the union regarding the conduct of the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established