Australian Workers' Union v Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 458

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union
v

Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

(B2022/149)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

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 Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 1 March 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 Steven 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 PR738914.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) sought a protected action ballot order from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, concerning certain employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (RBA). The dispute revolved around the proposed protected action ballot, which the AWU intended to conduct to determine whether the employees would support a particular industrial action in the context of their negotiations with RBA. The case was heard by Deputy President Clancy at the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 1 March 2022.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AWU had fulfilled the necessary requirements to conduct a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. This involved verifying that the AWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with RBA, that there was a notification time for the proposed agreement, and that the conditions outlined in section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The court needed to determine if the AWU had provided sufficient evidence to support its application for the ballot order.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the AWU had demonstrated it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with RBA, as evidenced by the declaration of Steven Bonica of the AWU. The Commission also concluded that the notification time for the proposed agreement was present and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been met. As RBA did not object to the application, the Deputy President determined the matter on the papers without the need for a hearing. Consequently, the court issued the protected action ballot order as requested by the AWU.

An order has been separately issued in PR738914, granting the AWU the authority to conduct the protected action ballot as part of their negotiations with RBA.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established