Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Cobham Aviation Services Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Cobham Aviation Services Engineering

[2022] FWC 1902

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v

Cobham Aviation Services Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Cobham Aviation Services Engineering

(B2022/710)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 20 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cobham Aviation Services Engineering PTY LTD

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 Cobham Aviation Services Engineering Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 20 July 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 Simon Russell 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 PR743967.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Transport Workers' Union of Australia for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Cobham Aviation Services Engineering Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, with the union seeking to hold a ballot to potentially take protected action. The respondent, Cobham Aviation Services Engineering, did not object to the application, resulting in the matter being determined on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had fulfilled the necessary requirements to hold a protected action ballot, specifically whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer. The union provided a declaration by Mr. Simon Russell, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the respondent and affirmed the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

The Deputy President was satisfied, based on the material presented, that the notification time for the proposed agreement existed and that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted. A separate order was issued in PR743967.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission approved the union's application for a protected action ballot, confirming that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement existed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established