The Australian Workers' Union v Nyrstar Hobart Smelter Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2010

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v

Nyrstar Hobart Smelter Pty Ltd

(B2022/1146)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 29 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nyrstar Hobart Smelter Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Workers’ 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 Nyrstar Hobart Smelter Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 28 July 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 Mr Robert Flanagan 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 PR744324.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union sought a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Nyrstar Hobart Smelter Pty Ltd. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Australian Workers' Union made an application for the order under section 437 of the Act. Nyrstar Hobart Smelter Pty Ltd did not object to the application, and the matter was determined by the Deputy President on the papers.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the application met the requirements of section 437 of the Act, and whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Commission was required to consider the declaration of Mr Robert Flanagan of the Australian Workers' Union, which set out the steps taken by the Union in bargaining with the Respondent, and whether the Union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Respondent.

The Commission was satisfied that the application met the requirements of section 437 of the Act, and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Commission was also satisfied that the Union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Respondent. The Commission issued an order in relation to the protected action ballot.

There is no additional information in the text regarding final orders. The Commission issued an order in relation to the protected action ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established