| [2022] FWC 1142 |
| 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
Shell Australia FLNG Pty Ltd
(B2022/416)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | BRISBANE, 12 MAY 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Shell Australia FLNG 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 Shell Australia FLNG Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 12 May 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 Damian Clancey of the Applicant declared on 9 May 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 PR741551.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR741552>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Shell Australia FLNG Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1142
- Case
- [2022] FWC 1142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Union had established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Shell Australia from implementing the proposed ballot. The Union argued that the ballot was not genuinely intended to be held, and if it was conducted, it would cause irreparable harm to the Union and its members.
The Court found that the Union had not satisfied the threshold for establishing a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction. The Union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the ballot was not genuinely intended to be held, and the Court was not satisfied that irreparable harm would occur if the ballot was conducted. The Court also noted that the Union had not provided any evidence to suggest that the ballot was being used for an improper purpose. As a result, the Court dismissed the Union's application for an interlocutory injunction.
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.