| [2022] FWC 3092 |
| 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
H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited
(B2022/1742)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 22 NOVEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of H.J. Heinz Company Australia 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 H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited (Respondent).
On 21 November 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 PR748159.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR748158>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited [2022] FWC 3092
- Case
- [2022] FWC 3092
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The union had to demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to negotiate with the employer and that it had a reasonable belief that the proposed agreement would be accepted by the employer. The Commission had to determine whether the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act, which sets out the conditions for a protected action ballot.
The Commission found that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and that it had taken reasonable steps to negotiate. The Commission was satisfied that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act, and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission issued an order for the union to conduct a ballot of the employees to determine whether they were willing to take protected action. The Commission found that the union had met the requirements of the Act, and that the proposed agreement was reasonable.
The Fair Work Commission granted the union's application for a protected action ballot order. The order allows the union to conduct a ballot of the employees to determine whether they are willing to take protected action. The Commission found that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer, and that it had met the requirements of the Act. The Commission was satisfied that the proposed agreement was reasonable, and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission issued an order for the union to conduct a ballot of the employees, and the matter was concluded.
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.