Australian Workers' Union, The v Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Limited

[2023] FWC 1207

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v

Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Limited

(B2023/486)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 23 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty 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 Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 22 May 2023, 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 James Newbold 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 PR762328.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Limited. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose from a proposed protected action ballot among the employees, and the Union claimed it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the Union had satisfied the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the Union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Union submitted a declaration by Mr James Newbold, outlining the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent.

In issuing the order, the Deputy President considered the material before them, including the declaration from Mr Newbold. The court found that the Union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and that there was a notification time for the proposed agreement. Therefore, the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met. Consequently, the Deputy President determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing and issued an order permitting the ballot.

This decision concludes that the Australian Workers’ Union satisfied the necessary conditions to proceed with the protected action ballot, and the order was issued accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established