The Australian Workers' Union v PHI International Australia Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 310

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v

PHI International Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/56)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PHI International Australia 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 PHI International Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 9 February 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 Douglas Charles Heath of the Applicant declared on 7 February 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 PR738374.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union took PHI International Australia Pty Ltd to the Fair Work Commission to seek approval for a proposed industrial action ballot of the company's employees. The employees were seeking to take protected action in relation to a number of issues including unfair dismissal, underpayment of wages and the termination of an enterprise agreement. PHI opposed the ballot, arguing that the employees' claims were not valid as they were either not within the scope of the Fair Work Act or had not been properly lodged with the Commission. The Commission was required to determine whether the proposed ballot was an appropriate response to the employees' claims, and whether it was necessary to hold the ballot in order to resolve the dispute.

In its decision, the Commission found that the employees' claims were valid and that the proposed ballot was an appropriate response. The Commission found that the employees had been unfairly dismissed, underpaid and had had their enterprise agreement terminated without justification. The Commission also found that the employees had made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute through conciliation and that the proposed ballot was necessary in order to resolve the dispute. The Commission approved the ballot and ordered PHI to provide the employees with the necessary information in order to conduct the ballot.

The Commission's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the law. The Commission found that the employees' claims were supported by the evidence and that PHI had not provided any evidence to the contrary. The Commission also found that the employees had made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute and that the proposed ballot was necessary in order to resolve the dispute. The Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was an appropriate response to the employees' claims and that it was necessary in order to resolve the dispute. The Commission approved the ballot and ordered PHI to provide the employees with the necessary information in order to conduct the ballot. The Commission also ordered PHI to provide the employees with a written statement setting out the reasons for its opposition to the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established