The Australian Workers' Union v PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd

[2023] FWC 524

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers' Union
v

PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd

(B2023/183)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 2 MARCH 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PPK Mining Equipment 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 PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 1 March 2023, 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 Cameron Wright of the Applicant declared on 21 February 2023, 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 PR751361.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union has applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd. The application is made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant claims that it has been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer but has been unable to do so, necessitating the proposed industrial action. The employer did not oppose the application.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the conditions set out in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been met, which include a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and a genuine attempt by the union to reach an agreement with the employer. The Commission also needed to determine whether the application was made in good faith and whether the proposed action was protected action as defined in the Act.

The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, found that the union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Vice President was satisfied with the material presented, including the statutory declaration by Cameron Wright of the Applicant, which detailed the bargaining process and the union's efforts to reach an agreement. Consequently, the Vice President decided to grant the application and ordered a protected action ballot.

An Order was separately issued in PR751361, formalising the Commission's decision to permit the protected action ballot. The decision underscores the importance of the bargaining process and the conditions that must be met for a union to lawfully proceed with protected industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established