DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Mansfields Pty Ltd
(B2019/1305)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mansfields 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 Mansfields Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 13 November 2019, 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 statutory declaration of Mr A Giles 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 PR714255.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in United Workers' Union v Mansfields Pty Ltd involved a union's attempt to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Mansfields Pty Ltd. The Union sought to conduct the ballot as a precursor to potential industrial action. Mansfields Pty Ltd challenged the legality of the ballot, asserting that the Union had failed to follow the requisite procedures. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining the legality of the ballot and the procedures followed by the Union.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to ascertain whether the Union had given the employer the requisite notice and information in accordance with the Act. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the ballot itself was appropriately conducted and whether it was conducted within the bounds of the Act.

In delivering its decision, the Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the Union had not provided the employer with the required information regarding the proposed ballot, including the proposed dates and the specific matters to be balloted. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the Union's ballot did not meet the legal standards for a protected action ballot as it lacked the necessary procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the ballot was invalid and that the Union had not complied with the statutory requirements. The Commission ordered the Union to cease the ballot and to take appropriate steps to remedy the procedural failings.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the Union to cease the proposed ballot and to take steps to ensure compliance with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also directed the Union to provide Mansfields Pty Ltd with the necessary information and to allow the employer an opportunity to respond to the proposed ballot. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures when conducting protected action ballots and highlights the potential consequences of non-compliance.

United Workers' Union v Mansfields 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