Daniel Dale, Peter Palmato, and Robert Janissen v The Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission

Case [2023] FWC 2858


[2023] FWC 2858

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Daniel Dale,
Peter Palmato,
and Robert Janissen
v

The Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission

(B2023/1188)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

SYDNEY, 31 OCTOBER 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

  1. This is an application by three individual bargaining representatives: Mr Daniel Dale, Mr Peter Palmato and Mr Robert Janissen (Applicants) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC or Employer)

  1. I note that the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) have made a separate application for a protected action ballot order in relation the same proposed agreement.[1]

  1. On 31 October 2023, the Commission was advised, in effect, that the ACCC did not object to the Application, as amended.[2]

  1. In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

  1. Section 437(1) of the Act permits 2 or more bargaining representatives to make an application for a ballot to be conducted.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Daniel Dale on behalf of the Applicants, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Employer and they have been, and are, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the ACCC, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 12 December 2023.[3] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR767779.

  1. This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference along with the other related matter (B2023/1131). To the extent that this matter involves any additional bargaining representatives, the Commission will also issue the Order requiring their attendance at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] B2023/1131.

[2] The Applicants provided a revised application amending the legal name of the employer, the ballot close date in line with AEC requirements and making minimal amendment to clarify the voting cohort, which the Respondent confirmed it did not oppose.

[3] This is, in effect, 30 working days from the making of the Order, which is the period required by the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct a ballot.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR767778>

Details
AGLC
Daniel Dale, Peter Palmato, and Robert Janissen v The Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission [2023] FWC 2858
Case
[2023] FWC 2858
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has considered an application by Mr Daniel Dale, Mr Peter Palmato and Mr Robert Janissen (the Applicants) under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC or Employer). The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) has made a separate application for a protected action ballot order in relation to the same proposed agreement. The ACCC did not object to the Application, as amended, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the Applicants had met the requirements of s.437 of the Act, including whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and whether all the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been met. The Commission was satisfied that the Applicants had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Employer and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission also determined that the date by which voting was to close was 12 December 2023, which also established the ballot period for the purposes of s.448A(2) of the Act.

The Commission determined that the Applicants had met the requirements of s.437 of the Act and granted the Application. The Commission ordered that a ballot be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission and that voting was to close on 12 December 2023. The matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference along with the other related matter (B2023/1131). To the extent that this matter involves any additional bargaining representatives, the Commission will also issue the Order requiring their attendance at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

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.