| [2022] FWC 1357 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Centennial Myuna Pty Ltd
(B2022/482)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 30 MAY 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Centennial Myuna Pty Ltd
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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Centennial Myuna Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 30 May 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent neither consented to nor opposed 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 Bradley McDougall of the Applicant declared on 16 May 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 PR742140.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR742141>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Centennial Myuna Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1357
- Case
- [2022] FWC 1357
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which mandates that the union must have been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer before seeking a ballot for protected action. The union had to demonstrate through a statutory declaration that it had been genuinely trying to negotiate with the company and that a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement had elapsed. The declaration by Bradley McDougall of the union, dated 16 May 2022, was central to this assessment.
The Commission found that the union had satisfied the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. Based on the statutory declaration and the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the company, it was determined that the union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and that a notification period had passed. Consequently, the Vice President issued an order permitting the union to proceed with the ballot for protected action. A separate order was also issued in PR742140.
This decision underscores the importance of the notification period and the necessity for unions to demonstrate genuine attempts at negotiation before proceeding with a ballot for protected action. The Fair Work Commission's decision to allow the ballot highlights the balance between protecting the rights of employees and ensuring that procedural requirements are met.
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.