| [2022] FWC 2382 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd T/A Cleanaway
(B2022/1339)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 7 SEPTEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd T/A Cleanaway.
This is an application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd T/A Cleanaway (the Respondent).
The Respondent initially advised my Chambers that it objected to the protected action ballot order being made. Specifically, it raised a concern in relation to the industrial action identified in question 6 of the proposed order. After reviewing the Application form and the Statutory Declaration, and while acknowledging the concern about the proposed question 6 raised by the Respondent, I cannot see a statutory basis upon which the Applicant’s application should be rejected. The Respondent did not outline a statutory basis for its objection addressing s.443 of the Act and nor did it request to be heard in relation to it.
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 Daryl Coghill 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 PR745594.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR745593>
- AGLC
- Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd T/A Cleanaway [2022] FWC 2382
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2382
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Deputy President reviewed the application form and the statutory declaration and acknowledged the concern raised by the respondent regarding question 6. However, upon further examination, it was determined that there was no statutory basis for rejecting the application. The respondent did not outline any statutory basis for its objection, nor did it request to be heard on the matter. Consequently, the Deputy President decided to determine the matter based on the available papers without holding a hearing. The decision was made considering the material before the court, including the declaration of Mr. Daryl Coghill of the Applicant, which set out the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent.
Upon reviewing the material, the Deputy President was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act had been met. Consequently, an order was issued in PR745594. This decision highlights the importance of following the statutory requirements when filing an application under the Fair Work Act 2009 and the need for parties to outline their objections based on the relevant statutory provisions.
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.