| [2022] FWC 2309 |
| 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
Peanut Company of Australia Pty Ltd
(B2022/1287)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 31 AUGUST 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Peanut Company of Australia 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 Peanut Company of Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 29 August 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 Daniel Bessell of the Applicant declared on 26 August 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 PR745335.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR745336>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Peanut Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2309
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2309
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Act, including demonstrating that it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Company and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Union provided a statutory declaration from Daniel Bessell, who stated that the Union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Company and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Commission considered the material provided by the Union and determined that the requirements of the Act had been satisfied.
The Commission found that the Union had taken all necessary steps to reach an agreement with the Company and had met the notification time for the proposed agreement. Therefore, the Commission granted the Union's application and issued an Order permitting the ballot of the employees to take protected action. The Commission noted that an Order had been separately issued in PR745335.
In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted the Union's application for a protected action ballot order, finding that the Union had satisfied the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission determined that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Company and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Commission issued an Order permitting the ballot of the employees to take protected action.
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.