| [2022] FWC 2692 |
| 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
Journey Beyond
(B2022/1523)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 7 OCTOBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Journey Beyond
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 Journey Beyond (Respondent).
On 6 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 Mr Paul Scudds 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 PR746570.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR746569>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Journey Beyond [2022] FWC 2692
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2692
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission included whether the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had expired and whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Applicant had to demonstrate that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the required notification period had elapsed. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the Commission was required to make a decision on the matter based on the material presented.
Upon reviewing the material before it, the Commission was satisfied that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had expired and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The declaration of Mr Paul Scudds of the Applicant outlined the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. In light of this, the Commission approved the application and issued an order in PR746570, allowing the Applicant to proceed with the protected action ballot.
This decision highlights the importance of following the proper procedures and demonstrating genuine attempts at bargaining when seeking protected action ballot orders. The Commission considered the material presented and made its decision based on the evidence and the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The order issued in PR746570 permits the Applicant to proceed with the protected action ballot, allowing its members to take industrial action if necessary.
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.