DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Vinidex Pty Ltd
(B2020/465)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 27 AUGUST 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Vinidex Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Vinidex Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 25 August 2020, the Fair Work 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 statutory declaration of Isaac Avery of the Applicant declared on 24 August 2020, 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 PR722200.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in United Workers' Union v Vinidex Pty Ltd arose when the Union sought to conduct a ballot of Vinidex employees in relation to potential protected industrial action. Vinidex, a company in the medical supplies industry, contested the ballot's validity and sought an injunction to prevent it. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over such disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements for protected action and if the Union had correctly identified the bargaining agent for the employees. The Union argued that the ballot was valid and necessary to protect employees' rights, while Vinidex contended that the ballot process was flawed and that the Union did not have the authority to conduct it.

The Commission examined the procedures followed by the Union in calling for the ballot and the context in which it was proposed. The Court found that the Union had not correctly identified the bargaining agent for the employees, which was a critical procedural requirement. Additionally, the Commission concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the necessity of the proposed action. As a result, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was not valid and granted Vinidex's application for an injunction to prevent it. The Commission's decision was based on the strict compliance with procedural requirements and the absence of demonstrated necessity for the industrial action.

In its final orders, the Commission not only upheld Vinidex's application for an injunction but also directed the Union to cease and desist from proceeding with the ballot. The Union was required to take steps to ensure that no further actions were taken in relation to the proposed ballot, thereby reinforcing the importance of procedural compliance in industrial relations matters.

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