DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Longwarry Food Park Pty Ltd
(B2020/707)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 NOVEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Longwarry Food Park 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 Longwarry Food Park Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 13 November 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 Mr M 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 PR724541.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Workers' Union versus Longwarry Food Park Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the right of the union to conduct a ballot of its members regarding proposed protected action. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The union sought to conduct a ballot to ascertain the support of its members for a proposed protected action, which was intended to be industrial action in the form of a strike. Longwarry Food Park Pty Ltd opposed the ballot on the grounds that it was not a protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed action was sufficiently related to the employees' employment to qualify as protected action. The court had to determine if the action proposed by the union was directly related to the employees' employment and if the ballot was a necessary step to facilitate that action. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the ballot was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The court found that the proposed action was indeed related to the employees' employment as it involved a cessation of work. The court emphasised that the employees' intention to strike was directly linked to their employment conditions and terms. The ballot was deemed necessary to ascertain the level of support for the proposed action among the union members. The court also noted that the ballot was conducted in a manner consistent with the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the union's right to conduct the ballot and recognised the validity of the proposed protected action. The decision underscored the importance of the relationship between the proposed action and the employees' employment, as well as the necessity of the ballot in facilitating the action. The ruling supported the union's right to organise and engage in protected industrial action within the framework provided by the Fair Work Act.

United Workers' Union v Longwarry Food Park 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