DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited
(B2020/600)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 7 OCTOBER 2020

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 6 October 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 declaration of Ms A 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 PR723353.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the United Workers' Union, which sought an order that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Statewide Independent Wholesalers Limited was not authorised under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission had previously ordered that the ballot be conducted, and the union challenged that decision in the Federal Court. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act, particularly those relating to the authorisation of protected action ballots in the context of enterprise agreements.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Fair Work Commission correctly exercised its discretion in authorising the ballot, and if the decision was legally sound. The union argued that the ballot was not authorised because it did not comply with the procedural requirements set out in the Act, and that the Commission had misapplied the law in reaching its decision. The company, on the other hand, contended that the Commission's decision was well-founded and that the procedural requirements had been satisfied.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and the evidence before the Fair Work Commission. The court found that the Commission had correctly interpreted and applied the law in authorising the ballot, and that the decision was not flawed by any error of law. The union's challenge to the procedural aspects of the ballot was also dismissed, as the court held that the Commission had adequately considered the relevant factors and provided sufficient reasons for its decision. Consequently, the union's application for an order was dismissed.

The court's final orders were that the application be dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant to the respondent. The court also ordered that the costs be assessed on an indemnity basis, reflecting the nature of the proceedings and the outcome.

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