Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance v Nine Entertainment Co. Holdings Limited

[2022] FWC 1891

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
v

Nine Entertainment Co. Holdings Limited

(B2022/697)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 19 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nine Entertainment Co. Holdings Limited

This is an application by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (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 Nine Entertainment Co. Holdings Limited (Respondent).

On 18 July 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 Adam John Portelli of the Applicant declared on 15 July 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 PR743931.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) for an order permitting a ballot of employees of Nine Entertainment Co. Holdings Limited (Nine) for protected industrial action. The matter was brought under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), which allows for such ballots under specific conditions. Nine did not oppose the application, leading the Commission to decide on the matter without a hearing.

The legal issues addressed by the Commission involved whether the conditions of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were satisfied, including verifying the notification period for the proposed agreement and ensuring that the MEAA had genuinely attempted to negotiate with Nine. The MEAA provided a statutory declaration from Adam John Portelli, which detailed the bargaining process and affirmed their genuine efforts to reach an agreement with Nine.

Based on the evidence presented, Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the requirements for a ballot were met. The Commission found that the notification time for the proposed agreement was appropriate and that the MEAA had met its obligations under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the Commission granted the application, allowing the MEAA to proceed with the ballot of Nine’s employees for protected action.

An order was issued separately in PR743931, formalising the Commission's decision. The Commission's ruling permitted the MEAA to conduct the ballot as requested, provided that all legal requirements and procedural formalities were followed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established