Finance Sector Union of Australia v Superpartners Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 3070

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Finance Sector Union of Australia
v

Superpartners Pty Ltd

(B2022/1732)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 18 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Superpartners Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Finance Sector 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 Superpartners Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 17 November 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 Nikhil Singh of the Applicant declared on 16 November 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 PR748076.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Finance Sector Union of Australia v Superpartners Pty Ltd involves the Finance Sector Union of Australia (the Union) applying for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Superpartners Pty Ltd (the Employer) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot to potentially facilitate industrial action by the employees, a move that necessitated compliance with the procedural requirements set forth by the Act. The matter was brought before Vice President Catanzariti of the Fair Work Commission, who decided to proceed without a formal hearing as the Employer did not oppose the application.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the Union had satisfied the conditions stipulated by the Act to conduct a protected action ballot. These conditions include the Union having genuinely attempted to negotiate with the Employer and the adherence to the notification period mandated by the Act. The Union's application included a statutory declaration by Nikhil Singh, outlining the steps taken in the bargaining process and affirming the Union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the Employer.

Upon reviewing the provided material, Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the Union had met the legislative requirements, including the notification period and the procedural obligations under section 443(1) of the Act. This conclusion was based on the evidence presented, which demonstrated that the Union had been actively engaged in negotiations with the Employer. Consequently, the Vice President granted the Union's application for a protected action ballot order, affirming the Union's right to proceed with the ballot under the conditions specified by the Act.

An Order was subsequently issued, formalising the decision and allowing the Union to proceed with the ballot as per the provisions of the Fair Work Act. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in the context of protected industrial actions, ensuring that the rights of both employees and employers are safeguarded within the legal framework.

Finance Sector Union of Australia v Superpartners Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established