| [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
<PR743966>
- AGLC
- Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Cobham Aviation Services Engineering Pty Ltd T/A Cobham Aviation Services Engineering [2022] FWC 1902
- Case
- [2022] FWC 1902
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
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.