The Australian Maritime Officers' Union v TT-Line Company Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 574

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Maritime Officers' Union
v

TT-Line Company Pty Ltd

(B2022/199)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 15 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of TT-Line Company Pty Ltd.

This is an application by the Australian Maritime Officers' Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 15 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent 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 Jarrod Moran 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 PR739331.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Maritime Officers' Union filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order for certain employees of TT-Line Company Pty Ltd. This application was made in light of ongoing negotiations between the Union and the Respondent concerning an employment agreement. The specific nature of the dispute pertains to the proposed industrial action, which is to be decided through a ballot among the employees involved. The case was heard and determined by Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission, with proceedings taking place in Melbourne on 15 March 2022.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Union had satisfied the requirements under the Fair Work Act to proceed with a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court had to assess whether there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and whether the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent. These matters were critical in determining the legitimacy and procedural correctness of the Union's application.

The court found that the Union had met the statutory requirements under section 443(1) of the Act, as evidenced by the declaration from Jarrod Moran of the Union. The declaration detailed the steps taken during the bargaining process and affirmed the Union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent did not object to the application, which facilitated the court's decision to determine the matter based on the submitted documents without the need for a formal hearing. Consequently, the court issued an order in accordance with the application, allowing the proposed protected action ballot to proceed.

The Fair Work Commission, through Deputy President Clancy, concluded that the Union's application was valid and that the necessary conditions for a protected action ballot had been met. The court's decision was grounded in the Union's demonstrated commitment to negotiation and adherence to the statutory requirements. This ruling paves the way for the employees to vote on the proposed industrial action, reflecting the procedural integrity upheld by the Fair Work Commission in this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established