DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Geoffrey Thompson and Growers Co-operative Company Proprietary Limited
(B2021/285)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 28 APRIL 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Geoffrey Thompson and Growers Co-operative Company Proprietary Limited.

[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 Geoffrey Thompson and Growers Co-operative Company Proprietary Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 28 April 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 Ahn Nguyen 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 PR729027.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Geoffrey Thompson and Growers Co-operative Company Proprietary Limited. The ballot aimed to gauge support for industrial action, including a potential strike. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an Australian tribunal with jurisdiction over workplace relations matters. The Growers Co-operative Company Proprietary Limited, along with Mr. Geoffrey Thompson, contested the ballot, raising issues regarding the union's compliance with procedural requirements and the potential impact on the company's operations.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved whether the Union had fulfilled all necessary procedural prerequisites to conduct the ballot and whether the proposed action would unduly disrupt the company's business. The company argued that the ballot was improperly conducted and that the Union had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of genuine industrial action. The Union contended that all procedural steps had been meticulously followed and that the proposed action was a legitimate response to unresolved workplace issues.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission closely examined the procedural steps taken by the Union in organising the ballot. The Commission found that the Union had adhered to the necessary requirements, including providing adequate notice and information to the employees. The tribunal also considered the potential impact of the proposed action on the company's operations, ultimately determining that the disruption was reasonable given the circumstances. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the Union, allowing the ballot to proceed.

The final orders of the Fair Work Commission mandated that the Union could proceed with the protected action ballot among the employees of the Growers Co-operative Company Proprietary Limited. The decision emphasised the importance of procedural compliance and the balance between employees' rights to organise and the operational needs of the company.

United Workers' Union v Geoffrey Thompson and Growers Co-operative Company Proprietary Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established