| [2023] FWC 1102 |
| 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
Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited
(B2023/406)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 9 MAY 2023 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Isis Central Sugar Mill Company 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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited (Respondent).
On 5 May 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Daniel Bessell of the Applicant declared on 4 May 2023, 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 PR761762.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR761763>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited [2023] FWC 1102
- Case
- [2023] FWC 1102
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the Union had met the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act to hold a protected action ballot. This involved determining if there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and if the Union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Company. The Commission needed to assess the evidence provided by the Union to ensure that the statutory criteria for holding a ballot were satisfied.
The Fair Work Commission assessed the statutory declaration from Daniel Bessell and concluded that the Union had met the criteria set out in the Act. The declaration detailed the steps taken by the Union in bargaining with the Company and affirmed that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was approved.
The Fair Work Commission issued an Order permitting the Union to proceed with the protected action ballot among the employees of the Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited. The Commission determined that the Union had demonstrated compliance with the necessary legal requirements and that the proposed agreement had the requisite notification period. This decision allowed the Union to move forward with the ballot process as part of its efforts to reach a new 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.