Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma

[2022] FWC 2084

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

Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma

(B2022/1185)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 5 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma.

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 Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma (the Respondent).

On 5 August 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 Simon Pisoni 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 PR744561.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide whether the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia could hold a protected action ballot for its members who work for Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma. The union applied for this under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union wanted to hold the ballot because it had been trying to reach an agreement with the company, but they had not been successful.

The legal issue for the court to decide was whether the union met the requirements to hold a ballot for protected action. The union needed to show that it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the company, and that there was a notification time for the proposed agreement. The union provided a declaration from its representative, Mr Simon Pisoni, which explained the steps they had taken to negotiate with the company. The union also showed that they had met the requirements in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act.

The court was satisfied that the union had met the requirements to hold a ballot for protected action. The union had shown that it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the company, and that there was a notification time for the proposed agreement. The company did not object to the union's application, so the court decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. The court issued an order allowing the union to hold the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia could hold a protected action ballot for its members who work for Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma. The union could now proceed with the ballot as it had met the requirements under section 437 of the Fair Work Act. This decision allowed the union to take protected action to try and reach a better agreement with the company for its members.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established