DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Rheem Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/553)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 20 JULY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rheem Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (UWU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Rheem Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 20 July 2021, 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 declaration of Gabrielle Kavanagh of UWU made on 19 July 2021, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR731874.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of United Workers' Union versus Rheem Australia Pty Ltd, the issue at hand was a proposed industrial action by the employees of Rheem Australia Pty Ltd, a manufacturer of water heaters. The union, United Workers' Union, intended to conduct a ballot to gauge the employees' support for protected action. Rheem Australia Pty Ltd sought an injunction to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot, arguing that the union's actions were unlawful and would cause significant harm to the company's operations and reputation. The court was tasked with determining whether the union's proposed ballot was lawful and whether an injunction was warranted to prevent it.

The court examined the legal framework governing industrial action in Australia, including the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009. It considered the requirements for a protected action ballot, including the necessity for the union to provide written notice to the employer and the employees. The court also evaluated whether the proposed industrial action was for a lawful purpose and whether the union had acted in good faith. Furthermore, the court assessed the potential harm to Rheem Australia Pty Ltd if the ballot proceeded, including the impact on the company's reputation, customer confidence, and financial stability.

After a thorough analysis of the legal provisions and the evidence presented, the court concluded that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the legal requirements for a protected action ballot. The union had failed to provide the necessary written notice to the employer and had not adequately demonstrated that the proposed industrial action was for a lawful purpose. The court found that the union's actions were unlawful and that an injunction was necessary to prevent the ballot from proceeding. The court issued an injunction restraining the union from conducting the proposed ballot and ordered the union to cease and desist from any further unlawful activities.

In light of the court's decision, the union was restrained from proceeding with the proposed ballot and was ordered to cease and desist from any further unlawful activities. The court's injunction provided relief to Rheem Australia Pty Ltd, safeguarding the company's reputation and operations from the potential harm of the proposed industrial action.

United Workers' Union v Rheem Australia 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