Australian Workers' Union, The v UGL Operations and Maintenance (Services) Pty Limited

[2023] FWC 854

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v

UGL Operations and Maintenance (Services) Pty Limited

(B2023/311)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 APRIL 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Operations and Maintenance (Services) Pty Limited

This is an application by The Australian Workers’ 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 UGL Operations and Maintenance (Services) Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 6 April 2023, 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 Anthony Beers of the Applicant declared on 4 April 2023, 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 PR760976.

VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of UGL Operations and Maintenance (Services) Pty Limited. The application was made without opposition from the Respondent, who was notified of the proposed protected action. The Vice President of the Commission, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter based on the submitted documents, including a statutory declaration by Anthony Beers of the Union, which outlined the steps taken during negotiations with the Respondent and the Union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met and if the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were fulfilled. The court had to consider the evidence provided by the Union, including their efforts to negotiate with the Respondent and the steps taken towards reaching an agreement. The decision hinged on whether the Union had genuinely attempted to resolve the dispute through bargaining and if the notification requirements were satisfied.

The Vice President concluded that the Union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification period for the proposed agreement was met. The requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were also fulfilled, as evidenced by the statutory declaration and other documents submitted. Based on these findings, the Vice President decided to grant the application for a protected action ballot order.

An Order has been issued separately in PR760976, allowing the Union to proceed with the ballot for protected action. The decision ensures that the Union's members can vote on the proposed protected action, providing a clear path forward in the dispute resolution process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established