| [2023] FWC 431 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Australian Federation of Air Pilots
v
Toll Remote Logistics Pty Ltd T/A Toll Helicopters
(B2023/126)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 21 FEBRUARY 2023 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Toll Remote Logistics Pty Ltd T/A Toll Helicopters
This is an application by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (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 Toll Remote Logistics Pty Ltd T/A Toll Helicopters (Respondent).
On 20 February 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of David Stephens of the Applicant declared on 17 February 2023, 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.
An Order has been separately issued in PR750966.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR750965>
- AGLC
- Australian Federation of Air Pilots v Toll Remote Logistics Pty Ltd T/A Toll Helicopters [2023] FWC 431
- Case
- [2023] FWC 431
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot under section 437 of the Act had been met. This required the Commission to assess if the notification time had elapsed and if the Applicant had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Commission had to consider the statutory declaration from the Applicant and any other relevant material to determine if the prerequisites for the ballot were satisfied. The Respondent's lack of opposition to the application also influenced the Commission's decision-making process.
The Fair Work Commission concluded that the notification time had passed and that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent, fulfilling the statutory requirements. As a result, the Commission granted the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order. The decision was made without a hearing, considering the Respondent's non-opposition and the material provided by the Applicant. The Commission's order was issued separately, and the matter was concluded with the grant of the requested ballot order.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.