Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited

[2022] FWC 1315

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

Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited

(B2022/476)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 6 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty 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 Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 25 May 2022, 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 Prameesh Chandra of the Applicant declared on 27 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 PR742020.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia for a protected action ballot order regarding certain employees of Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Knorr-Bremse did not oppose the application, prompting the Commission to determine the matter on the available papers without a hearing.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether there was a notification period for the proposed agreement and whether the statutory requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. The Commission examined the statutory declaration from Prameesh Chandra of the Applicant, which detailed the steps taken in bargaining with Knorr-Bremse and affirmed the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement. Based on the information presented, the Commission was satisfied that the notification period was in place and that all statutory requirements had been met.

In light of the findings, the Vice President issued an Order permitting the protected action ballot. This decision underscores the Commission's role in facilitating fair work practices and ensuring that unions can take appropriate actions when negotiations reach an impasse. The Commission's decision was made to support the union's right to ballot its members concerning potential protected actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established