Australian Workers' Union v InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 1913

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union
v

InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/696)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 20 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd

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 InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 19 July 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 Tom Williams of the Applicant declared on 14 July 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 PR743997.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) applied to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd (InvoCare). The FWC was informed that InvoCare did not oppose the application. The application was determined on the papers, without a hearing. The Vice President found that the AWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with InvoCare and that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met.

The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the AWU had met the requirements of section 437 of the Act to hold a protected action ballot. This involved determining whether the AWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with InvoCare and whether the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met.

The Vice President found that the AWU had met the requirements of section 437 of the Act. The Vice President accepted the evidence of Tom Williams of the AWU, who provided a statutory declaration setting out the steps taken by the AWU in bargaining with InvoCare and that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with InvoCare. The Vice President also found that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. As a result, the Vice President was satisfied that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met and made the protected action ballot order.

Australian Workers' Union v InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established