Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Liberty Bell Bay Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 1072

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

Liberty Bell Bay Pty Ltd

(B2022/404)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 6 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Liberty Bell Bay 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 Liberty Bell Bay Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 6 May 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 Chris Clark 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 PR741357.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has determined an application for a protected action ballot order by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) against Liberty Bell Bay Pty Ltd (Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to conduct a ballot among certain employees of the Respondent regarding proposed protected action. The matter was decided without a hearing as the Respondent did not object to the application.

The central legal issues for the Commission were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. The Commission considered the declaration from Mr. Chris Clark of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and affirmed that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement.

Based on the material provided, including the declaration, the Deputy President found that the notification time had indeed been met and that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The Commission was satisfied with the Applicant's efforts to reach a negotiated agreement and the procedures followed, leading to the decision to grant the application. Consequently, an order was issued in PR741357.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established