DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Workers' Union
v
Steambrook Pty Ltd T/A Seed Heritage; F.C. Australia Pty Ltd T/A French Connection; J.L. Footwear Pty Ltd T/A Nine West
(B2019/1322)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 20 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Steambrook Pty Ltd T/A Seed Heritage, F.C. Australia Pty Ltd T/A French Connection, and J.L. Footwear Pty Ltd T/A Nine West.

[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 Steambrook Pty Ltd T/A Seed Heritage, F.C. Australia Pty Ltd T/A French Connection, and J.L. Footwear Pty Ltd T/A Nine West (Respondent).

[2] On 19 November 2019, 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 Ms A Thwaites 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 PR714428.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Workers' Union versus Steambrook Pty Ltd trading as Seed Heritage, the Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Seed Heritage, as well as two other companies, French Connection and Nine West. The primary dispute centred around the Union's request for a ballot and whether such action was justified under the relevant legislation. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the Union's request.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the Union's proposed ballot complied with the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if the Union had provided sufficient evidence to justify the need for the ballot. The court was required to examine whether the ballot was being conducted for a proper purpose, whether the Union had followed the correct process, and if the ballot was likely to result in protected action. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the proposed ballot involved only eligible employees and whether the ballot was reasonably necessary for the Union's objectives.

The court examined the evidence provided by the Union and the arguments presented by both parties. It found that the Union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed ballot was reasonably necessary, and that the ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements set out in the legislation. Consequently, the court ruled that the Union's request for the ballot was invalid. The court emphasised that the Union must adhere to the proper process and provide adequate evidence to justify a proposed ballot.

As a result of the court's decision, the Union's application for a proposed protected action ballot was dismissed. The court did not make any orders beyond the dismissal of the Union's application. The decision reinforces the importance of Unions following the correct procedures and providing adequate evidence when seeking to conduct a ballot among employees.

United Workers' Union v Steambrook Pty Ltd T/A Seed Heritage

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established