Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Autocare Services Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 475

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v

Autocare Services Pty Ltd

(B2022/150)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 3 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Autocare Services Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (NSW Branch) (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 Autocare Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 2 March 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 Bradley Gibson of the Applicant declared on 1 March 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 PR738974.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Transport Workers' Union of Australia (NSW Branch) versus Autocare Services Pty Ltd was heard by Vice President Catanzariti at the Fair Work Commission. The Transport Workers' Union of Australia (NSW Branch) applied under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Autocare Services Pty Ltd. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without the need for a hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was met, and if the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been satisfied. The decision hinged on whether the Union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and if the statutory declaration provided by Bradley Gibson of the Applicant demonstrated the Union's efforts in this regard.

Vice President Catanzariti was satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that the notification time for the proposed agreement was in place and the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met. The statutory declaration of Bradley Gibson confirmed the Union's genuine attempts to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was approved.

No additional orders were made beyond the approval of the protected action ballot order, which was separately issued in PR738974.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established