DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Heinemann Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/1320)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 18 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Heinemann Australia 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 Heinemann Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 18 November 2019, 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 statutory declaration of Mr T Kennedy 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 PR714378.

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 of the employees of Heinemann Australia Pty Ltd, a company involved in the book publishing industry. The employer challenged the ballot, asserting that the ballot was not related to any industrial dispute. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine the validity of the ballot.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot constituted a protected action in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. This required the Commission to examine the nature and scope of the industrial dispute, as well as the relevance and connection of the ballot to the dispute. The employer argued that the ballot did not pertain to any actual or potential industrial dispute, while the union contended that the ballot was a legitimate step in the process of resolving an existing dispute.

In its decision, the Commission found that the proposed ballot was indeed connected to an industrial dispute. The Commission observed that the union had provided evidence of an ongoing dispute regarding the employer's refusal to recognise the union as the appropriate bargaining agent for a group of employees. The Commission concluded that the ballot was a reasonable and necessary step in the process of resolving this dispute. Consequently, the Commission upheld the union's right to conduct the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission upheld the union's right to conduct the proposed protected action ballot of Heinemann Australia Pty Ltd's employees. The Commission found that the ballot was connected to an existing industrial dispute concerning the employer's refusal to recognise the union as the appropriate bargaining agent. The Commission rejected the employer's argument that the ballot was unrelated to any industrial dispute, and determined that the ballot was a legitimate and reasonable step in the process of resolving the dispute.

United Workers' Union v Heinemann Australia 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