DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited T/A Iplex Pipeline Systems
(B2021/352)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited T/A Iplex Pipeline Systems.

[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 Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited T/A Iplex Pipeline Systems (Respondent).

[2] On 24 May 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 Karthika Raghwan 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 PR730111.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought a declaration from the Federal Court of Australia regarding the validity of a proposed industrial action ballot. The union aimed to conduct a ballot of its members employed by Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited, which operates under the name Iplex Pipeline Systems, to determine if they would support protected action. The central issue was whether the proposed ballot was lawful and if the union had correctly identified the relevant employees eligible to participate in the ballot. The union argued that the proposed ballot was necessary to ascertain its members' willingness to engage in industrial action, while Iplex contended that the ballot was improperly conducted and did not comply with relevant industrial laws.

The court examined the parameters of the proposed ballot to determine if it adhered to the requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act 2009. It considered the definition of 'employee' and whether the union had accurately identified the relevant employees entitled to vote in the ballot. The court also assessed if the ballot notice provided to employees met the legal criteria for a protected action ballot. The union's primary argument was that the ballot was an essential step in gauging member support for potential industrial action. Conversely, Iplex asserted that the ballot was flawed and did not accurately reflect the employees' willingness to participate in protected action, potentially leading to a misleading outcome.

After reviewing the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the union's proposed ballot was not in compliance with the legislative requirements. The court found that the ballot notice did not accurately reflect the employees' willingness to engage in protected action, as it did not properly account for all relevant employees. Consequently, the court ruled that the proposed ballot was invalid and could not proceed as intended by the union. The court's decision was based on the legal requirements for a protected action ballot and the necessity for accurate and comprehensive employee identification.

The court issued a declaration that the proposed ballot of employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited T/A Iplex Pipeline Systems was invalid. The union was not permitted to proceed with the ballot as it did not comply with the necessary legal standards. This decision provided clarity for both parties regarding the legal parameters of conducting a protected action ballot and reinforced the importance of adhering to the relevant industrial laws.

United Workers' Union v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited T/A Iplex Pipeline Systems

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established