Australian Maritime Officers' Union v Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 3243

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Maritime Officers’ Union
v

Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd

(B2022/1811)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

MELBOURNE, 8 DECEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Maritime Officers’ 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 Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 8 December 2022, 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 Mark Lascelles Davis of the Applicant declared on 7 December 2022, 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 PR748725.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has considered an application by the Australian Maritime Officers' Union (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Teekay Shipping (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent). This case was brought under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) to facilitate the union's process of seeking a ballot of its members regarding potential protected industrial action. The Respondent did not oppose the application, thereby permitting the matter to proceed without a formal hearing. The Vice President, Catanzariti, determined the application based on the documentation submitted, including a statutory declaration from the Applicant affirming their genuine efforts to negotiate with the Respondent.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the statutory conditions for proceeding with a protected action ballot were met. These conditions include the requirement that the union has made a genuine attempt to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification period for the proposed agreement has been fulfilled. The Commission had to assess if the union's efforts were genuine and if the notice requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied.

Upon reviewing the evidence, Vice President Catanzariti found that the union had indeed made genuine efforts to negotiate with the Respondent and that the statutory notice period had been adhered to. The declaration from the Applicant, along with other submitted documents, provided sufficient evidence to meet the criteria outlined in the Act. Consequently, the Commission was satisfied that the requirements for a ballot order were met. An order was subsequently issued in accordance with the application.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the union's application for a protected action ballot order. The decision was made on the basis of the documentation submitted, which demonstrated the union's genuine negotiation efforts and compliance with the Act's notification requirements. This ruling allows the union to proceed with a ballot of its members regarding potential industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established