Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Visy Logistics Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 1024

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v

Visy Logistics Pty Ltd

(B2022/345)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 4 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Visy Logistics 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 Visy Logistics Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 3 May 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 Lachlan Enshaw of the Applicant declared on 20 April 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 PR741213.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Transport Workers' Union of Australia (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Visy Logistics Pty Ltd (Respondent) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made to allow the union to conduct a ballot of its members regarding proposed protected action, which generally refers to industrial action like strikes or lockouts. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issue before the Vice President was whether the union had met the requirements under the Fair Work Act for conducting a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and if the statutory notification period had been met. The union provided a statutory declaration affirming its efforts in bargaining with the employer and that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement. The Vice President was satisfied that the union had met the criteria for a protected action ballot, including the notification period as required by section 443(1) of the Act.

The Vice President concluded that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement and had satisfied the statutory notification requirement. Consequently, an order was issued to permit the union to conduct the protected action ballot. This decision underscores the importance of meeting the statutory requirements for protected industrial action, ensuring that unions and employers follow the prescribed processes to facilitate lawful industrial relations activities.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established