DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Metcash Trading Limited
(B2020/532)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Metcash Trading Limited.

[1] This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Metcash Trading Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 15 September 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Rowan Payne 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 PR722914.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Metcash Trading Limited. The Union aimed to organise industrial action to address various grievances, including claims of unfair dismissals, wage underpayments, and unsafe work conditions. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission, Australia's industrial relations tribunal. The central legal issues the Commission had to resolve involved whether the proposed industrial action met the prerequisites for being protected under Australian labour laws and whether the Union had correctly followed the necessary procedures to conduct the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission examined the Union's application to determine if the proposed industrial action was protected. The Commission assessed whether the employees' claims had been raised in good faith and whether the Union had followed all procedural requirements, including providing Metcash Trading Limited with the requisite details of the ballot. The Union argued that the industrial action was justified due to the significant and unresolved issues raised by the employees. However, Metcash Trading Limited contested the validity of the proposed industrial action, claiming procedural non-compliance and arguing that the action was not genuinely related to the employees' working conditions or employment terms.

After thorough deliberation, the Fair Work Commission found that the Union had not complied with the necessary procedural requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. The Commission ruled that the Union had failed to provide sufficient information to Metcash Trading Limited about the ballot, which was a critical procedural step. Consequently, the proposed industrial action was not protected, and the Union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules when organising protected industrial action to ensure the integrity of the industrial relations process.

United Workers' Union v Metcash Trading Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established