United Workers’ Union v Summary

[2022] FWC 2113

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union

Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd

(B2022/1191)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 9 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (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 Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 9 August 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 Karthika Raghwan of the Applicant declared on 5 August 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 PR744633.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers’ Union, acting on behalf of certain employees, applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order against Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd. The Union sought to conduct a ballot among employees regarding potential protected action, presumably related to industrial dispute resolution. The Commission received notice from Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd that it did not oppose the application. Consequently, Vice President Catanzariti decided to determine the matter based on the submitted documentation without the need for a hearing.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had satisfied the requirements set forth in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act, specifically regarding the notification period and the genuine efforts in bargaining with the employer. The Union's application included a statutory declaration from Karthika Raghwan, affirming that the Union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd and that a notification period for the proposed agreement had been observed. The Commission had to assess these submissions to determine if the Union's application met the statutory criteria.

After reviewing the provided documentation and the statutory declaration, Vice President Catanzariti found that the Union had fulfilled the necessary requirements. The Union demonstrated it had been genuinely attempting to negotiate with the employer and had observed the notification period as stipulated in the Act. As a result, the Vice President decided to grant the Union's application for a protected action ballot order. An Order was issued separately, confirming the authorisation for the ballot.

The final orders made by the Fair Work Commission allowed the United Workers’ Union to proceed with the ballot for protected action among the specified employees of Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd, ensuring that the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act were satisfied.

United Workers’ Union v

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established