United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Ventia Pty Limited

[2023] FWC 425

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Firefighters’ Union of Australia
v

Ventia Pty Limited

(B2023/137)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 21 FEBRUARY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ventia Pty Limited

This is an application by the United Firefighters’ 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 Ventia Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 21 February 2023 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 Jeremy Murphy, 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 PR 750952.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Firefighters' Union of Australia (Applicant) made an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of Ventia Pty Limited (Respondent). The application was filed to allow the employees to vote on proposed protected action. The case was heard by Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 21 February 2023.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conditions for a protected action ballot were satisfied under the Fair Work Act. This included determining if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Applicant's declaration by Mr Jeremy Murphy was crucial in establishing that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent during the bargaining process.

The Deputy President reviewed the material submitted, including Mr Murphy's declaration, and found that the notification time existed and that the requirements of section 443(1) had been fulfilled. Given that the Respondent did not object to the application, the Deputy President determined the matter on the papers without the need for a hearing. Consequently, an order was issued in PR 750952 to permit the protected action ballot to proceed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established