| [2022] FWC 843 |
| 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
MSF Sugar Pty Ltd
(B2022/295)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | BRISBANE, 12 APRIL 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of MSF Sugar 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 MSF Sugar Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 11 April 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 Robert Hill of the Applicant declared on 8 April 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 PR740297.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR740298>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v MSF Sugar Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 843
- Case
- [2022] FWC 843
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the Fair Work Commission had to decide were whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. The union had to demonstrate that it had taken steps in good faith to reach an agreement with the employer, and the Fair Work Commission considered the statutory declaration of Robert Hill of the union, which outlined the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer. The Fair Work Commission also had to determine whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met.
The Fair Work Commission was satisfied that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. The Fair Work Commission considered the statutory declaration of Robert Hill of the union, which set out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer, and was satisfied that the union had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the employer. The Fair Work Commission also considered that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Therefore, the Fair Work Commission decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
The Fair Work Commission issued an order in PR740297, allowing the union to conduct a ballot of its members to take protected action in pursuit of their objectives. The employer did not oppose the application. The Fair Work Commission's decision was based on the material before it, including the statutory declaration of Robert Hill of the union, which set out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer. The Fair Work Commission was satisfied that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met.
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.