| [2022] FWC 3275 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd
(B2022/1808)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 13 DECEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd
This is an application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (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 Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd (Respondent).
The Respondent neither opposed nor consented 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 statutory declaration of Ho Lau of the Applicant declared on 6 December 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 PR748863.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR748864>
- AGLC
- Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 3275
- Case
- [2022] FWC 3275
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the Commission needed to address included whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid and whether the Transport Workers' Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd. The Commission had to determine if these conditions, as outlined in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, were met to grant the protected action ballot order.
The Commission found that the statutory declaration of Ho Lau of the Transport Workers' Union, dated 6 December 2022, was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the company. Additionally, the Commission was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid. As such, the requirements for the protected action ballot order were fulfilled. Consequently, the Commission decided to grant the order without the need for a hearing.
An order was issued separately in PR748863. This decision confirms the validity of the union's application for a protected action ballot order and the satisfaction of the legal requirements for such an order under the Fair Work Act 2009.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.