Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v UGL Rail Services Pty Limited

[2023] FWC 977

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

UGL Rail Services Pty Limited

(B2023/363)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 26 APRIL 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited

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 UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented nor objected 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 statutory declaration of Bradley McDougall of the Applicant declared on 19 April 2023, 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 PR761372.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (the Respondent). The Applicant sought the order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The Respondent did not consent to or object against the application. The Vice President Catanzariti decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met and whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Vice President considered the material before the court, including the statutory declaration of Bradley McDougall of the Applicant, which set out the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The Vice President was satisfied that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Therefore, the court determined to make an order in favour of the Applicant. An Order was separately issued in PR761372.

The Vice President issued an order in favour of the Applicant and determined that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. An Order was separately issued in PR761372.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established