Australian Workers' Union, The v PWB Anchor Limited Summary

[2022] FWC 1310

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v

PWB Anchor Limited

(B2022/490)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 26 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PWB Anchor Limited

This is an application by The Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of PWB Anchor Limited (the Respondent).

On 26 May 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 Paul Konaris 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 PR742007.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 against PWB Anchor Limited. The AWU sought a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of PWB Anchor Limited. The case was heard by Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 26 May 2022. The application was made without objection from PWB Anchor Limited, leading to the decision being made on the papers submitted without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AWU had met the requirements to conduct a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the AWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with PWB Anchor Limited and if there was a notification period for the proposed agreement as required by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act. The AWU's declaration by Mr. Paul Konaris, which outlined the bargaining steps taken and the union's efforts to reach an agreement, was central to this determination.

Deputy President Clancy examined the materials submitted and concluded that the AWU had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot. The court found that the notification period was in place and that the AWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with PWB Anchor Limited. Consequently, the court granted the AWU's application for a protected action ballot order. Additionally, a separate order was issued in PR742007.

Australian Workers' Union, The v PWB Anchor Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established