DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
L’Oreal Australia Pty Ltd
(B2020/583)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 30 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of L’Oreal 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 L’Oreal Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 30 September 2020, 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 G Kavanagh 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 PR723227.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Workers' Union versus L'Oreal Australia Pty Ltd, the United Workers' Union sought to organise a protected action ballot among the employees of L'Oreal Australia Pty Ltd. The union aimed to conduct the ballot to ascertain the employees' support for protected industrial action. L'Oreal Australia Pty Ltd, on the other hand, opposed the ballot, raising concerns about potential disruptions and impacts on their operations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union's proposed ballot constituted a protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the ballot was a legitimate means of organising industrial action and if L'Oreal's objections were justified under the Act. The court also needed to consider the implications of the ballot on the operations of L'Oreal and the rights of its employees.

The court meticulously examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to ascertain the requirements for a protected action ballot. It found that the union had followed the necessary procedural steps and that the ballot was a legitimate means of gauging employee support for potential industrial action. The court emphasised that the right to organise and participate in such ballots is a fundamental aspect of industrial relations in Australia. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union, affirming that the proposed ballot was a protected action and dismissing L'Oreal's objections.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the union could proceed with the proposed ballot among the employees of L'Oreal Australia Pty Ltd. The decision underscored the importance of protecting the rights of employees to organise and engage in protected industrial action while also considering the legitimate concerns of employers.

United Workers' Union v L'Oreal 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