| [2022] FWC 2958 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Australian Workers’ Union
v
Santos Ltd
(B2022/1675)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 8 NOVEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Santos 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 Santos Ltd (Respondent).
On 8 November 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application subject and that the parties had agreed to some amendments to the draft order.
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 Gary Henderson 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.
The Applicant also sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS). Mr Michael M Michael, the Managing Director of CiVs has provided a statutory declaration setting out that he would carry out the functions of the protected ballot agent for CiVS, and that he has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. I am satisfied that CiVS is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Michael and CiVS are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVs has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and Mr Michael and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.
Therefore I appoint CiVS as the protected action ballot agent.
An order has been separately issued in PR747710.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR747709>
- AGLC
- Australian Workers' Union v Santos Ltd [2022] FWC 2958
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2958
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the FWC was whether the AWU had met the requirements under section 437 of the Act to apply for a protected action ballot order. The AWU had to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Santos Ltd and that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met, as required by section 443(1) of the Act. Additionally, the AWU sought to appoint a ballot agent other than the Australian Electoral Commission, which was not opposed by Santos Ltd. The suitability of the proposed ballot agent, Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS, was also considered.
The FWC determined that the AWU had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot order. The declaration of Mr Gary Henderson of the AWU demonstrated the union's genuine efforts in bargaining with Santos Ltd. The FWC was satisfied that the notification time had been met and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. Furthermore, the FWC appointed CiVS as the ballot agent, considering Mr Michael M Michael's statutory declaration and his relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. CiVS agreed to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 in handling the information relating to the protected action ballot.
The FWC issued an order appointing CiVS as the protected action ballot agent, separate from the main decision in PR747710. This order allows the AWU to proceed with the ballot for potential protected action, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the order.
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.