| [2022] FWC 607 |
| 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
Wood Australia Pty Ltd
(B2022/193)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 18 MARCH 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Wood 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 Wood Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 15 March 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 James Little of the Applicant declared on 10 March 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 PR739441.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR739442>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Wood Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 607
- Case
- [2022] FWC 607
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act, which sets out the conditions for a protected action ballot. The union's declaration, made by James Little, stated that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer, and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Commission needed to determine if the union's actions and declarations were sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act.
The Vice President of the Commission, Catanzariti, was satisfied that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act. The Vice President noted that the employer did not oppose the application and that the union's statutory declaration, along with the other material before the Commission, established that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer. The Vice President also found that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. As a result, the Vice President decided to grant the union's application for a protected action ballot order.
The Fair Work Commission issued an order for a protected action ballot concerning the employees of Wood Australia Pty Ltd. The order was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act, and the Vice President found that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. The employer did not oppose the application, and the Vice President was satisfied that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met.
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.