| [2023] FWC 638 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union
v
Australian Capital Territory
(B2023/234)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 16 MARCH 2023 |
Proposed protected action ballot of certain employees in the ACT Public Service covered by the ACT Public Sector Health Professional Enterprise Agreement 2021-2022
This is an application by the CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union (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 the Australian Capital Territory (Respondent).
On 15 March 2023, 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 submissions filed by the parties and the statutory declaration of Ronald Edward Johnson of the Applicant declared on 10 March 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 and Directions have been separately issued in PR760354 and PR760356 respectively.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR760355>
- AGLC
- CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Australian Capital Territory [2023] FWC 638
- Case
- [2023] FWC 638
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the CPSU had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the CPSU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the ACT and if the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The CPSU submitted that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and provided a statutory declaration from Ronald Edward Johnson to support this claim.
The Fair Work Commission found that the CPSU had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The Vice President was satisfied that the CPSU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the ACT and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. As a result, the application was approved, and a protected action ballot order was issued. Additionally, separate orders and directions were issued in PR760354 and PR760356.
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.