DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Woolstar Pty Ltd
(B2020/300)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 3 JUNE 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Woolstar Pty Ltd.

[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 Woolstar Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 2 June 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 PR719862.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Workers' Union versus Woolstar Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was asked to consider a dispute arising from a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Woolstar Pty Ltd. The United Workers' Union, representing the employees, sought to conduct a ballot to determine whether the employees wished to engage in protected action, such as a strike or lockout, in pursuit of their industrial objectives. Woolstar Pty Ltd, the employer, opposed the ballot, arguing that it would cause significant financial harm and disruption to its business operations.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed ballot constituted a protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if so, whether the potential harm to Woolstar Pty Ltd's business outweighed the employees' right to conduct the ballot. The court needed to balance the statutory rights of the employees to organise and take protected action with the employer's right to conduct its business without undue interference. Additionally, the court had to consider the potential impact of the ballot on third parties, such as customers and suppliers, who might be affected by any ensuing industrial action.

The court found that the proposed ballot did indeed constitute a protected action under the Fair Work Act. However, in assessing whether the harm to Woolstar Pty Ltd's business was sufficiently serious to warrant preventing the ballot, the court concluded that the employer had not demonstrated that the ballot would cause irreparable harm. The court emphasised the importance of the right to organise and take protected action as a fundamental element of industrial relations, and that such rights should not be lightly interfered with. The court also noted that the potential harm to Woolstar Pty Ltd could be mitigated through appropriate measures, such as scheduling the ballot at a time that would minimise disruption.

As a result, the court ruled in favour of the United Workers' Union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed. The court ordered that Woolstar Pty Ltd allow the union to conduct the ballot as planned, provided that it took reasonable steps to minimise any disruption to its business operations.

United Workers' Union v Woolstar 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