The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v CHC Helicopter (Australia)

[2023] FWC 244

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
v

CHC Helicopter (Australia)

(B2023/53)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 27 JANUARY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CHC Helicopter (Australia)

This is an application by the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (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 CHC Helicopter (Australia) (Respondent).

On 25 January 2023, 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 Stephen Purvinas of the Applicant declared on 24 January 2023, 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 PR750033.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CHC Helicopter (Australia) (Respondent). The application was made to allow the Applicant to conduct a ballot of its members regarding proposed protected action. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The central legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the Applicant had met the requirements under section 437 of the Act to hold a protected action ballot. The Applicant needed to demonstrate that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that it had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent. This involved showing the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and proving that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

The Commission considered the material before it, including the statutory declaration of Stephen Purvinas of the Applicant, which set out the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. Based on this evidence, the Vice President was satisfied that the Applicant had met the requirements under section 437 of the Act. Consequently, the Commission determined that the Applicant was entitled to hold a protected action ballot in relation to the proposed agreement.

An Order was separately issued in PR750033, allowing the Applicant to proceed with the ballot. This decision was made without a hearing, as the Respondent did not oppose the application and the Commission was satisfied with the information provided 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