Australian Workers' Union, The v Victoria Racing Club Limited T/A Victoria Racing Club

[2022] FWC 2606

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union, The
v

Victoria Racing Club Limited T/A Victoria Racing Club

(B2022/1455)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Victoria Racing Club Limited Trading As Victoria Racing Club

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 Victoria Racing Club Limited Trading as Victoria Racing Club (Respondent).

On 28 September 2022, I held a Mention at which some matters raised by the Respondent were discussed. Ultimately no objections to the application were pressed. I proceeded to determine the matter on the papers filed.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Steve Bonica 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 PR746275.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) sought a protected action ballot order from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) against Victoria Racing Club Limited, trading as Victoria Racing Club (Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to hold a ballot for employees to take protected industrial action. The FWC was required to decide whether the requirements for a protected action ballot were met, including whether there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and if the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer.

In considering the matter, the Deputy President of the FWC, Clancy, examined the material filed by the parties, including a declaration by Mr. Steve Bonica of the Applicant. The declaration outlined the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the Respondent and confirmed that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer. The Deputy President found that the notification period in relation to the proposed agreement existed and that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. The Respondent did not object to the application during the mention held on 28 September 2022, allowing the Deputy President to determine the matter on the basis of the filed documents.

Consequently, the Deputy President issued an order in accordance with the application. The decision and order were made in the context of a separate proceeding identified as PR746275. The FWC authorised the protected action ballot, enabling the union to proceed with the ballot among the employees of the Respondent to take protected industrial action. The order was issued to facilitate the union's efforts to reach a resolution in its bargaining with the employer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established