ASU v Veolia Water Operations Pty Limited
[2026] FWC 1839
The Facts The ASU applied for a protected action ballot order so its members at Veolia Water Operations could vote on taking industrial action during enterprise bargaining. Veolia did not oppose the ballot itself but tried to delete or narrow several proposed ballot questions, including bans on paperwork, contractor entry, work-from-home returns, signage and media comments. Neither side filed detailed submissions to back up their positions. The Decision Deputy President Hampton granted the ballot order largely as the union proposed,…
The rest of this case is for HR Automate members
Sign in to read the full analysis, employer takeaways, and related policy templates.
Sign in Or learn about membership
Important — for information only. This case summary is general background information and should not be relied on as legal or HR advice. Summaries can miss important legal detail and every situation has its own facts. Before taking any action based on what you read here, get independent advice from a qualified employment lawyer or HR professional.