Lia Mighall v Bedford Phoenix Incorporated T/A Bedford Group

[2022] FWC 650

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Lia Mighall
v

Bedford Phoenix Incorporated T/A Bedford Group

(B2022/218)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 24 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bedford Phoenix Incorporated T/A Bedford Group.

This is an application by Ms Lia Mighall (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bedford Phoenix Incorporated T/A Bedford Group (the Respondent).

On 24 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application. However, it raised a number of concerns in relation to the form and content of the draft order.

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 Applicant’s response to the concerns raised by the Respondent and the declaration of Ms Lia Mighall setting out the steps taken by her in bargaining with the Respondent and that she 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 of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to make an order for a protected action ballot in the terms sought by the Applicant.

An order has been separately issued in PR739645.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lia Mighall v Bedford Phoenix Incorporated T/A Bedford Group was heard by the Fair Work Commission, where the applicant, Ms Lia Mighall, sought a protected action ballot order for certain employees of the respondent, Bedford Phoenix Incorporated. This application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary concern was the proposed protected action ballot of employees, and the matter was decided on the papers without a hearing as the respondent did not object but raised concerns regarding the form and content of the draft order.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the requirements under section 443 of the Act were met. The court considered the applicant's response to the concerns raised by the respondent, as well as the declaration of Ms Lia Mighall, which outlined the steps taken by her in bargaining with the respondent and her genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

Based on the material before the court, including the applicant's response and the declaration, the court was satisfied that the notification time existed in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements of section 443 of the Act were met. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to make an order for a protected action ballot in the terms sought by the applicant.

A separate order has been issued in PR739645. The Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission made the decision on 24 March 2022 in Melbourne, and the decision is printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established