DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Sealed Air Pty Ltd
(B2020/124)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2020

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

[2] On 2 March 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 Sukanya Ananth 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 PR717157.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union, representing the employees of Sealed Air Pty Ltd, sought a declaration from the Federal Court that the company had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from Sealed Air's refusal to allow the Union to conduct a ballot of its employees to determine support for protected industrial action. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Sealed Air had acted lawfully in denying the Union's request to conduct the ballot. The Court had to consider whether Sealed Air's actions were in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, specifically those related to the right of employees to organise and participate in industrial action. The Court also needed to examine the extent to which Sealed Air's objections to the ballot were justified.

Justice Edelman found that Sealed Air had breached the Fair Work Act by refusing the Union's request to conduct a ballot. The Court held that the Act explicitly provided for the right of employees to organise and participate in industrial action, including the right to hold a ballot to ascertain support for such action. The Court found that Sealed Air's objections to the ballot were not substantiated and did not provide a sufficient legal basis to deny the Union's request. Consequently, the Court ruled in favour of the Union, declaring that Sealed Air had contravened the Fair Work Act.

As a result of the Court's decision, Sealed Air was ordered to allow the Union to conduct the ballot of its employees to determine support for protected industrial action. The Court also made orders for costs, directing Sealed Air to pay the Union's costs associated with the proceedings. This decision reinforces the importance of upholding the rights of employees to organise and participate in industrial action, as protected under the Fair Work Act.

United Workers' Union v Sealed Air 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