| [2022] FWC 3026 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Australian Workers’ Union
v
RTA Gove Pty Ltd T/A Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited
(B2022/1702)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 15 NOVEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of RTA Gove Pty Ltd t/as Rio Tinto Aluminium 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 RTA Gove Pty Ltd T/A Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited (Respondent).
On 14 November 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 Darren Lee of the Applicant declared on 10 November 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 PR747935.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR747936>
- AGLC
- Australian Workers' Union v RTA Gove Pty Ltd T/A Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited [2022] FWC 3026
- Case
- [2022] FWC 3026
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Vice President was whether the union had satisfied the prerequisites for a protected action ballot as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain if the union had genuinely tried to negotiate with the employer and if the statutory notification period had been appropriately observed. The union substantiated its application through the statutory declaration of Darren Lee, which detailed the union's efforts in bargaining and compliance with the notification period. The respondent's lack of opposition to the application also played a role in the Vice President's decision-making process.
Upon reviewing the provided documentation, including the statutory declaration from the union, the Vice President found that the union had indeed been genuinely attempting to negotiate with the employer and that the statutory notification period had been adhered to. The Vice President concluded that the union met the requirements set forth in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, thereby granting the union's application for a protected action ballot. The decision was rendered without a hearing due to the respondent's non-opposition and the comprehensive documentation submitted by the union.
The Fair Work Commission issued an order in PR747935, permitting the Australian Workers’ Union to proceed with the protected action ballot for the employees of RTA Gove Pty Ltd, trading as Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited. This order was made in light of the union's compliance with the legal requirements and the respondent's non-opposition to the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.