The Australian Maritime Officers' Union v Bits Ferry Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 3151

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Maritime Officers’ Union
v

BITS Ferry Services Pty Ltd

(B2022/1769)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

MELBOURNE, 28 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bits Ferry Services Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Maritime Officers’ Union (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 BITS Ferry Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 25 November 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 Christopher Claydon of the Applicant declared on 25 November 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 PR748372.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Maritime Officers’ Union (the Union) lodged an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bits Ferry Services Pty Ltd (the Employer). The Union claimed that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Employer but had been unable to do so, necessitating the proposed industrial action. The Employer did not oppose the Union's application.

The legal issues before the Fair Work Commission were whether the Union had fulfilled the statutory requirements to notify the Employer of the proposed protected action and whether the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Employer. Additionally, the Commission had to determine if the Union met the criteria for the protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Act.

The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, found that the Union had indeed fulfilled its obligations to notify the Employer of the proposed protected action and had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement. The Vice President was satisfied that the Union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act and that a notification time had been provided. Given that the Employer did not oppose the application, the Vice President decided to determine the matter without holding a hearing.

The Vice President issued an order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, allowing the Union to proceed with the protected action ballot. The order was issued separately in PR748372, and the Union was authorised to conduct the ballot as per the provisions of the Act.

The Australian Maritime Officers' Union v Bits Ferry Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established