| [2023] FWC 356 |
| 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
Programmed Industrial Maintenance Pty Ltd
(B2023/106)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 14 FEBRUARY 2023 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Programmed Industrial Maintenance 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 Programmed Industrial Maintenance Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 14 February 2023, 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 Ms Chelsea Hill 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 PR750572.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR750571>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Programmed Industrial Maintenance Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 356
- Case
- [2023] FWC 356
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the Fair Work Commission had to address was whether the union had fulfilled the conditions required under section 443(1) of the Act to hold a ballot for protected action. This included verifying that the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement. The union's declaration, along with other documentation provided, was examined to determine if these criteria were met. The company did not object to the application, which simplified the process for the Commission.
Upon reviewing the evidence, Deputy President Clancy concluded that the union had indeed taken the necessary steps to negotiate in good faith and that a notification period for the proposed agreement was in place. Given the absence of objection from the company and the evidence presented, Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot. Consequently, the application was approved, and an order was issued accordingly, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot as requested.
In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the union's application for a protected action ballot. The decision was based on the evidence provided by the union, which demonstrated their genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the company and the existence of a notification period. The company's lack of objection further supported the decision. The final order, issued separately, permits the union to proceed with the ballot for the employees to vote on potential 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.