John Robert George v Superior Pak Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 1371

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

John Robert George
v

Superior Pak Pty Ltd

(B2022/480)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 7 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Superior Pak Pty Ltd

This is an application by John Robert George (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 Superior Pak Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 27 May 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 John Robert George of the Applicant declared on 25 May 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 PR742187.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by John Robert George on behalf of certain employees against Superior Pak Pty Ltd. The application sought a protected action ballot order in relation to the employees, as permitted under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Superior Pak Pty Ltd did not oppose the application, leading the Commission to proceed with the matter based on the submitted documents without a hearing. The primary document was a statutory declaration by John Robert George, dated 25 May 2022, which outlined the efforts made by the applicant to negotiate with the respondent and affirmed that these efforts were genuinely aimed at reaching an agreement.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the applicant had satisfied the conditions required under section 437 of the Act to seek a ballot for protected action. Specifically, the Commission had to ascertain whether there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and if the applicant had met the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act. The applicant's declaration detailed the negotiation steps and affirmed compliance with the statutory prerequisites for a ballot. The Commission found that these requirements had indeed been met, based on the material presented.

The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, concluded that the applicant had fulfilled the necessary conditions for a protected action ballot. The Commission was satisfied that the applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Superior Pak Pty Ltd and that all procedural requirements had been met. Consequently, an order was issued, permitting the proposed ballot for protected action to proceed. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to statutory negotiation processes and the Commission's role in ensuring compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009.

John Robert George v Superior Pak Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established