Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) v Babcock Mission Critical Services Australasia Pty Ltd T/A Babcock Mission Critical Services

[2022] FWC 2588

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA)
v

Babcock Mission Critical Services Australasia Pty Ltd T/A Babcock Mission Critical Services

(B2022/1453)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Babcock Mission Critical Services Australia Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Babcock Mission Critical Services Australasia Pty Ltd T/A Babcock Mission Critical Services (Respondent).

On 27 September 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Noel Speers 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR746227.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Babcock Mission Critical Services Australia Pty Ltd T/A Babcock Mission Critical Services. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter on the papers without a hearing. The applicant sought the order to facilitate a proposed protected action ballot of its members, who are employees of the respondent.

The key legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the applicant had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the respondent and whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The applicant's declaration, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the respondent and the genuine efforts to reach an agreement, was central to the court's decision.

The Deputy President found that the applicant had met the requirements for a protected action ballot order. The court was satisfied that the applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the respondent, as evidenced by the steps taken in bargaining and the ongoing efforts to reach an agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Consequently, the Deputy President granted the application and issued an order separately in PR746227.

This decision underscores the importance of the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act when seeking a protected action ballot order. The court's decision highlights the need for genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the employer and adherence to the statutory requirements. The grant of the order facilitates the proposed protected action ballot, enabling the applicant to proceed with the intended industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established