Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Wormald Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 960

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

Wormald Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/348)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 27 APRIL 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Wormald 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 Wormald Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 21 April 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 Daniel Bessell of the Applicant declared on 21 April 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 PR740740.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has determined an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Union) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Wormald Australia Pty Ltd (Employer). The Union applied for the order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, following failed negotiations with the Employer over a proposed agreement. The Employer did not oppose the application, leading to the matter being determined on the papers without a hearing. The Union's application was supported by a statutory declaration asserting that the Union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Employer.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had met the conditions necessary for a protected action ballot, specifically whether there was a notification period and if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. The Union argued that it had been genuinely attempting to negotiate with the Employer and had satisfied the notification time for the proposed agreement. The Commission examined the evidence presented, including the statutory declaration from the Union, to assess whether these requirements were met.

The Commission concluded that the Union had indeed met the notification time and had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Employer. Based on the material presented, which included the Union's statutory declaration, the Commission was satisfied that the Union had fulfilled the conditions for a protected action ballot. Consequently, the Commission granted the Union's application and issued an Order permitting the ballot.

The final orders of the Commission were that the Union was authorised to conduct a protected action ballot among the specified employees of the Employer. This decision allows the Union to proceed with the ballot as part of its efforts to negotiate a better agreement with the Employer.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Wormald Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established