Australian Workers' Union v InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 2964

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union
v

InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/1681)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 9 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of InvoCare 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 InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 8 November 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 Patrick Wood 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 PR747735.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union sought a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made on the basis that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The employer did not object to the application. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Clancy, determined the matter on the papers without a hearing, as the employer did not object.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had taken the necessary steps in bargaining with the employer and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The court had to consider the declaration of Mr Patrick Wood of the Applicant, which set out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer and that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer. The court also had to determine whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met.

The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission, Clancy, was satisfied that the union had taken the necessary steps in bargaining with the employer and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The court found that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The court issued an order for a protected action ballot in PR747735.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the application for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd. The court found that the union had taken the necessary steps in bargaining with the employer and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The court also found that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. An order for a protected action ballot has been issued in PR747735.

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