| [2022] FWC 2658 |
| 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
Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Limited
(B2022/1500)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ford Motor Company Australia 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Limited (Respondent).
On 3 October 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 PR746438.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR746437>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Limited [2022] FWC 2658
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2658
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had fulfilled the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and if the Union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Company. The Union provided a declaration from Ms Chelsea Hill stating that it had taken steps to bargain with the Company and had been genuinely trying to reach agreement.
The Commission found that the Union had met the requirements of the Act for holding a protected action ballot. It was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and that the Union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Company. Therefore, it decided to grant the Union's application for a protected action ballot order.
In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted the Union's application for a protected action ballot order, finding that the Union had fulfilled the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and that the Union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Company.
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.