| [2022] FWC 2317 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Bega Cheese Limited
(B2022/1299)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 1 SEPTEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bega Cheese Limited
This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bega Cheese Limited (Respondent).
On 31 August 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 Ms Chelsea Hill 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 PR745366.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR745365>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Bega Cheese Limited [2022] FWC 2317
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2317
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court revolved around whether the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent and if the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid, as required by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent, while the Respondent did not object to the application, indicating that it did not dispute the Union's claim.
In reaching the decision, the Deputy President examined the material presented, including the declaration of Ms Chelsea Hill of the Union, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent. The court found that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid. Consequently, the Deputy President granted the Union's application for a protected action ballot order. A separate order was also issued in PR745366.
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.