The Australian Workers' Union v EDL Group Operations Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2854

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v

EDL Group Operations Pty Ltd

(B2022/1596)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

BRISBANE, 24 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of EDL Group Operations Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Workers’ 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 EDL Group Operations Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 24 October 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 Shane Roulstone of the Applicant declared on 20 October 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 PR747161.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking an order for a protected action ballot in relation to certain employees of EDL Group Operations Pty Ltd. The application was made in the context of ongoing negotiations between the Union and the Employer regarding a proposed agreement. The Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application. As such, the matter proceeded to a determination on the papers, without the need for a formal hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had satisfied the statutory requirements to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Employer, as mandated by section 443(1) of the Act.

Upon reviewing the evidence presented, including a statutory declaration from the Union's Shane Roulstone, the Commission concluded that the Union had indeed met the statutory requirements. The declaration detailed the Union's efforts in bargaining with the Employer and its genuine attempts to reach an agreement. Consequently, the Vice President found that a notification time existed in relation to the proposed agreement and that the Union had complied with the Act's requirements.

The Fair Work Commission granted the Union's application, issuing an Order for a protected action ballot in PR747161. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when seeking to hold such ballots, ensuring that unions genuinely attempt to negotiate with employers before resorting to protected actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established