| [2022] FWC 2709 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Vic Tech Consulting & Construction Pty Ltd
(B2022/1532)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 10 OCTOBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Vic Tech Consulting & Construction 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 Vic Tech Consulting & Construction Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 10 October 2022, 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 PR746640.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR746639>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Vic Tech Consulting & Construction Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2709
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2709
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Union had fulfilled the prerequisites for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and whether the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Vic Tech Consulting & Construction Pty Ltd during the bargaining process. The Union submitted a declaration from Ms Chelsea Hill, outlining the steps taken in bargaining and affirming the Union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the company.
The Deputy President found that the Union had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot order, as outlined in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court accepted that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Vic Tech Consulting & Construction Pty Ltd and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. Consequently, the court granted the Union's application for a protected action ballot order.
In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted the application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Vic Tech Consulting & Construction Pty Ltd. The Deputy President determined the matter based on the documentation provided, finding that the Union had met the requirements for the order and had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the company during the bargaining process.
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.