DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Perfection Packaging Pty Ltd
(B2021/89)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 18 FEBRUARY 2021

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

[2] On 18 February 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 Mr D Robson 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 PR727124.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, United Workers' Union sought approval for a protected action ballot of employees of Perfection Packaging Pty Ltd. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to ascertain the employees' support for potential protected action, including a strike. Perfection Packaging Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, contending that it was unnecessary and would unduly disrupt the business operations.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was necessary and appropriate under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to determine if the union had established sufficient grounds to justify the ballot and whether the potential disruption to the employer's operations was justified by the need to ascertain employee support for potential protected action. The Commission also considered whether there were alternative methods available to the union that could achieve the same objective with less disruption.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had demonstrated a need for the ballot to ascertain the employees' support for potential protected action. The Commission concluded that the potential disruption to the employer's operations was outweighed by the importance of determining employee sentiment. The Commission also noted that the union had not identified any alternative methods that could achieve the same objective with less disruption. Consequently, the Commission approved the union's application for a ballot, subject to certain conditions to minimise disruption.

The Commission ordered that the ballot be conducted within a specified timeframe and that the union take steps to minimise the impact on the employer's operations. The Commission also imposed specific requirements on the conduct of the ballot, including notice requirements and the provision of information to employees. The employer was granted the right to make submissions to employees before the ballot and to have a representative present during the ballot. The Commission's decision provided a balance between the union's right to organise and the employer's need to maintain business operations.

United Workers' Union v Perfection Packaging 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