DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Lineage AUS TRS Pty Ltd
(B2021/404)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 10 JUNE 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Lineage AUS TRS 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 Lineage AUS TRS Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 9 June 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 Debbie Black 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 PR730623.

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 employees of Lineage AUS TRS Pty Ltd. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to assess employee support for potential protected actions, such as strikes or bans on overtime, to address workplace grievances. Lineage AUS TRS Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, asserting that it would disrupt their operations and infringe on their rights as an employer.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Union had the right to conduct the ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and if the proposed ballot would unduly disrupt the operations of the employer. The court had to balance the Union's right to organise and advocate for its members against the employer's rights to conduct their business without unreasonable interference.

The court found in favour of the Union. It held that the ballot was a legitimate part of the process of determining whether to take protected action. The court determined that the Union's right to organise and advocate for its members outweighed the potential disruption to the employer's operations. The court also considered the measures proposed by the Union to minimise disruption and found them to be reasonable.

The court ordered that the Union could proceed with the proposed ballot, subject to the conditions set out in the Union's ballot notice. These conditions included providing Lineage AUS TRS Pty Ltd with a copy of the ballot notice and allowing the employer a reasonable opportunity to respond. The court also directed that the ballot be conducted in a manner that minimised disruption to the employer's operations.

United Workers' Union v Lineage Aus TRS 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