DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Lesaffre Australia Pacific Pty Ltd
(B2021/78)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 FEBRUARY 2021

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

[2] On 15 February 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 Mr Martin de Rooy 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 PR726952.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the United Workers' Union sought an authorisation to conduct a ballot of employees of Lesaffre Australia Pacific Pty Ltd for proposed protected action. Lesaffre contested the application on the basis that the ballot related to the introduction of new technology, which it argued was not an appropriate subject for a ballot. The dispute centred around the scope of permissible subjects for a ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the introduction of new technology constituted a matter suitable for protected action. The Commission considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, including those pertaining to the objects of the Act and the categories of matters that could be the subject of protected action. The Commission also evaluated the precedent set by previous decisions on the permissible scope of protected actions.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the introduction of new technology could be a matter suitable for protected action if it had a direct impact on the terms and conditions of employment. The Commission held that the proposed ballot related to a genuine workplace matter and was therefore an appropriate subject for protected action. Accordingly, the Commission authorised the ballot as requested by the United Workers' Union.

The Fair Work Commission authorised the United Workers' Union to conduct a ballot of Lesaffre Australia Pacific Pty Ltd employees regarding the proposed protected action related to the introduction of new technology. This decision reinforces the importance of considering the direct impact of new technology on terms and conditions of employment when assessing the appropriateness of a proposed ballot.

United Workers' Union v Lesaffre Australia Pacific 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