The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia T/A Professionals Australia v Powercor Australia Ltd

[2022] FWC 1819

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia T/A Professionals Australia
v

Powercor Australia Ltd; Citipower Pty Ltd

(B2022/665)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 12 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Powercor Australia Ltd and Citipower Pty Ltd.

This is an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia T/A Professionals Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Powercor Australia Ltd and Citipower Pty Ltd (the Respondents).

On 12 July 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondents did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Pierce Tyson of the Applicant 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 PR743681.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia trading as Professionals Australia (the Applicant), seeking a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Powercor Australia Ltd and Citipower Pty Ltd (the Respondents). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, with the aim of facilitating a ballot among the employees regarding proposed protected action. The Respondents did not object to the application, prompting the Deputy President to decide on the matter based on the submitted documents without a hearing.

The primary legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met and whether the requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been satisfied. The Applicant had provided a declaration from Mr. Pierce Tyson, confirming the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and asserting that the Applicant had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

In making the decision, the Deputy President took into account the material presented, including Mr. Tyson's declaration, which indicated that the Applicant had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The court was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Consequently, the court issued an order in PR743681 to facilitate the ballot among the employees.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted the Applicant's request for a protected action ballot order, based on the evidence that the notification period had been met and that the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 were satisfied. This decision allows the employees to participate in a ballot concerning the proposed protected action, as sought by the Applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established