The Australian Workers' Union v Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited

[2022] FWC 993

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v

Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited

(B2022/373)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited.

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 Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited (the Respondent).

On 2 May 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 Ronald Paul Patrick Hayden 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 PR741126.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ventia Utility Services Pty Limited. This application was made to the Fair Work Commission, with Deputy President Clancy presiding over the case in Melbourne on 2 May 2022. The Union aimed to hold a ballot for its members to authorise protected industrial action against the Respondent company.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Union had fulfilled the necessary requirements to hold a protected action ballot. This included verifying that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent company and that the notification period had elapsed. The court needed to determine if the Union had provided sufficient evidence to meet these conditions.

The Deputy President examined the material submitted, including the declaration of Mr Ronald Paul Patrick Hayden of the Union, which outlined the steps taken during bargaining with the Respondent. The court found that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement. Furthermore, the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been met. Consequently, the court was satisfied with the evidence presented and decided to grant the Union's application without holding a hearing.

An order was subsequently issued in PR741126, allowing the Union to proceed with the ballot for 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