VARIATION TO DECISION

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009
s.44(1) RO Act—Amalgamation of organisations

National Union of Workers
and
United Voice
(D2019/9)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

ALBURY, 19 JUNE 2019

Application for approval for submission of amalgamation to ballot – ballot timetable varied

[1] The decision on 5 June 2019 fixing a date for the ballot is varied as follows:

1. By deleting the dates originally fixed for the commencing and closing days of the ballot and instead fixing 24 July 2019 as the commencing day of the ballot and 28 August 2019 as the closing day of the ballot.

2. Paragraph 8 of the edited version of the decision delivered ex tempore and recorded in transcript on 5 June 2019, published on 7 June 2019 ([2019] FWC 3931) is also varied accordingly.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission heard an application from the National Union of Workers and United Voice for the approval of their proposed amalgamation. The two unions sought to merge their operations and memberships, a process that required approval from the Fair Work Commission. The unions also requested a variation to the ballot timetable for the proposed amalgamation to allow for a smoother transition. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed amalgamation was in the best interests of the members of both unions and whether the variation to the ballot timetable was reasonable and necessary.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved the assessment of the merits of the proposed amalgamation and the appropriateness of the requested timetable variation. The Commission needed to consider whether the amalgamation would benefit the members of both unions, including the potential for improved service delivery and representation. Additionally, the Commission had to determine if the proposed variation to the ballot timetable was justified and would not unduly delay or prejudice the amalgamation process or the rights of the union members.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the proposed amalgamation was in the best interests of the members of both unions, as it would likely lead to enhanced service delivery and representation. The Commission also found that the requested variation to the ballot timetable was reasonable, given the specific circumstances of the case. The variation was deemed necessary to facilitate an orderly and efficient amalgamation process. As a result, the Commission approved the amalgamation and varied the ballot timetable as requested by the unions. The decision underscores the importance of balancing the interests of union members with the practicalities of the amalgamation process.

National Union of WorkersandUnited Voice

VARIATION TO DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established