DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union T/A United Services Union
v
Norco Co-Operative Ltd
(B2020/822)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 16 DECEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Norco Co-Operative Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union T/A United Services Union (USU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Norco Co-Operative Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 16 December 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Melissa Pond of the USU made on 11 December 2020, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR725551.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to the matter before the Fair Work Commission were the New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union, trading as the United Services Union, and Norco Co-Operative Ltd. The dispute centred around the union's proposal to hold a protected action ballot among Norco's employees. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an independent statutory tribunal in Australia with jurisdiction over industrial relations matters.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union's proposed ballot was protected action, whether the union had provided adequate notice to Norco, and whether Norco had demonstrated sufficient grounds to challenge the ballot. The Commission was required to consider the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Fair Work Regulations 2009 in determining these issues.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's proposed ballot was indeed protected action, as it related to a dispute between the union and Norco. The Commission also found that the union had provided adequate notice to Norco, as the union had provided the required 10 business days' notice. Furthermore, the Commission determined that Norco had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to challenge the ballot. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission upheld the union's right to hold a protected action ballot among Norco's employees, finding that the union had complied with the relevant notice provisions and that Norco had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to challenge the ballot. The Commission's decision reinforces the importance of providing adequate notice and the procedural requirements that must be followed in relation to protected action ballots in the Australian industrial relations context.

New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines & Utilities Union T/A United Services Union v Norco Co-Operative Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established