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

[2022] FWC 383

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

Lion Pty Ltd

(B2022/90)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 23 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Lion 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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Lion Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 21 February 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 Scott Reichman of the Applicant declared on 17 February 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 PR738659.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Lion Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The Applicant sought to hold a ballot to determine if the employees should take protected action in relation to their employment conditions. The Respondent did not oppose the application, leading the Commission to decide the matter on the papers without a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 had been satisfied. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the Applicant had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the Respondent and if the statutory notification period had been met. The evidence included a statutory declaration by Scott Reichman of the Applicant, affirming the steps taken in bargaining and the Applicant's ongoing efforts to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The Commission found that the statutory declaration provided sufficient evidence that the Applicant had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the Respondent. Additionally, the Commission was satisfied that the notification period required by the Act had been met. Consequently, the Commission granted the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission issued an order permitting the Applicant to hold a ballot among the specified employees of Lion Pty Ltd. This decision allows the employees to vote on whether to take protected action, provided the necessary notification period is observed and the statutory requirements are met.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established