DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Officeworks BusinessDirect Pty Ltd
(B2020/303)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 5 JUNE 2020

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

[2] On 5 June 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 statutory declaration of Ms A Thwaites 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 PR719996.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Workers' Union v Officeworks BusinessDirect Pty Ltd involves the United Workers' Union seeking to conduct a ballot of employees of Officeworks BusinessDirect Pty Ltd for proposed protected industrial action. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, where the union aimed to ascertain the legality of the proposed ballot.

The primary legal issue the court addressed was whether the union's proposed ballot for protected industrial action was compliant with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court needed to determine if the union had satisfied all the necessary conditions outlined in the Act for conducting such a ballot, including the requirement for protected action pay (PAP) notice.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the timing and content of the PAP notice provided by the union. It concluded that the union had not complied with the statutory requirements for giving the requisite notice. Specifically, the court found that the notice did not adequately inform employees of the proposed action and its potential implications, nor did it provide sufficient detail to allow employees to make an informed decision. Consequently, the court ruled that the union's proposed ballot was unlawful and could not proceed. The union's application for approval of the ballot was dismissed.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that the union's proposed ballot for protected industrial action was unlawful and could not proceed. The court also mandated that the union refrain from taking any further steps to conduct the ballot without first obtaining the necessary approvals. This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to the statutory requirements for protected industrial action, ensuring that employees are fully informed and able to make decisions based on complete information.

United Workers' Union v Officeworks BusinessDirect 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