The Australian Workers' Union v Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited

[2022] FWC 1718

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v

Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited

(B2022/623)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 5 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited

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 Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 5 July 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 Paul Farrow of the Applicant declared on 28 June 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 PR743338.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers’ Union sought a protected action ballot order from the Fair Work Commission in relation to certain employees of Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made due to the union's efforts to reach an agreement with the employer, which included bargaining and following the statutory requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Act. Knorr-Bremse Australia Pty Limited did not oppose the application, allowing the matter to be determined without a hearing.

The legal issues before the Fair Work Commission were whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and if the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. The union provided a statutory declaration from Paul Farrow, setting out the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and affirming that they had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

The Fair Work Commission, satisfied with the evidence presented, determined that the union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. Therefore, the Commission decided to grant the application and issued a separate order in PR743338.

This decision underscores the importance of following the statutory requirements when seeking a protected action ballot order and highlights the Fair Work Commission's role in facilitating negotiations between employers and unions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established