DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Vinidex Pty Ltd
(B2021/99)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 25 FEBRUARY 2021

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

[2] On 25 February 2021, the 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 Isaac Avery of the UWU made on 19 February 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 PR727304.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the matter of United Workers' Union versus Vinidex Pty Ltd, the dispute centred around the proposed industrial action of employees represented by the union. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with resolving this matter. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among its members, who were employees of Vinidex Pty Ltd, to gauge support for potential strike action. Vinidex, the respondent, contested the union's application, arguing that the ballot was not necessary and was being used as a coercive tactic.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved whether the proposed industrial action was protected action under the Fair Work Act, and if the union had satisfied the procedural requirements for conducting a ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union's application complied with the statutory prerequisites for a ballot, including the requirement that the union must reasonably believe that the industrial action is necessary to achieve an industrial objective. Additionally, the court examined whether the union had acted in good faith and if the ballot was a proportionate response to the circumstances.

The Commission found that the union's application did not meet the statutory requirements for a ballot, as there was insufficient evidence to support the necessity of the proposed industrial action. The union had failed to demonstrate that the industrial action was reasonably required to achieve its industrial objectives, and the Commission considered the proposed ballot to be more of a coercive measure rather than a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute. Consequently, the Commission rejected the union's application, holding that the procedural requirements for a ballot had not been satisfied. The Commission emphasised the importance of acting in good faith and ensuring that any proposed industrial action is necessary and proportionate to the circumstances.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the union's application to conduct a protected action ballot was dismissed. The Commission's ruling underscored the need for unions to adhere strictly to the legal requirements when seeking to organise industrial action and highlighted the importance of acting in good faith. This decision serves as a reminder to unions and employers of the procedural safeguards in place to ensure that industrial action is both necessary and proportionate, and that the process is conducted in a fair and lawful manner.

United Workers' Union v Vinidex 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