Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union v Stanwell Corporation Limited

[2022] FWC 1038

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union
v

Stanwell Corporation Limited

(B2022/352)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 5 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Stanwell Corporation Limited

This is an application by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services 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 Stanwell Corporation Limited (Respondent).

On 3 May 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 John Donaghy of the Applicant declared on 22 April 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 PR741255.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (the Union) applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order allowing a protected action ballot of employees of Stanwell Corporation Limited (Stanwell). The Union sought to take industrial action in relation to certain employees of Stanwell, a company involved in electricity generation and distribution. Stanwell did not oppose the Union's application, and the Commission determined the matter on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had satisfied the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a protected action ballot. Under section 437 of the Act, a protected action ballot can only be held if the Union has taken certain steps, including genuine attempts to negotiate an agreement with the employer. The Union argued that it had satisfied the requirements for a ballot, and the Commission was required to determine whether this was the case.

In determining the matter, the Commission considered the statutory declaration of John Donaghy of the Union, which set out the steps taken by the Union in bargaining with Stanwell and its efforts to reach an agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the Union had satisfied the requirements of section 437 of the Act, and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission also noted that the Union had met the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act, which relates to the notification of a protected action ballot.

The Fair Work Commission granted the Union's application for a protected action ballot, and an order was separately issued in PR741255. The Commission found that the Union had satisfied the requirements of the Act to hold a ballot, and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Union may now proceed with the ballot, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established