DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited
(B2021/28)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 27 JANUARY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited.

[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 Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 27 January 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 Alycia Economidis 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 PR726423.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought to conduct a ballot of the employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited in relation to proposed protected action. The union applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order authorising the ballot. The employer, Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited, opposed the application on the basis that the ballot would be unlawful as it was not in relation to a dispute in the "best interests of the employees concerned". The Fair Work Commission was required to determine whether the proposed ballot was in relation to a dispute in the best interests of the employees.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot related to a dispute in the best interests of the employees. The Commission noted that the test for determining whether a dispute is in the best interests of employees was not limited to disputes that were solely related to employees' interests. The Commission found that the proposed ballot related to a dispute that was in the best interests of the employees. The proposed dispute was in relation to the employees' conditions of employment, which was a matter in their best interests. The Commission also found that the proposed ballot was not an industrial action ballot, but rather a ballot to determine whether the employees wished to pursue a dispute in relation to their conditions of employment.

The Fair Work Commission ultimately found that the proposed ballot was in relation to a dispute in the best interests of the employees and ordered that the ballot be conducted. The Commission found that the proposed dispute related to the employees' conditions of employment, which was a matter in their best interests. The Commission also found that the proposed ballot was not an industrial action ballot, but rather a ballot to determine whether the employees wished to pursue a dispute in relation to their conditions of employment. The Commission held that the dispute was in the best interests of the employees as it related to their conditions of employment.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot of the employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited be conducted. The Commission found that the proposed ballot related to a dispute in the best interests of the employees, and that it was not an industrial action ballot. The Commission ordered that the ballot be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

United Workers' Union v Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established