United Workers' Union v Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle

[2022] FWC 1386

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle

(B2022/513)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle.

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle (the Respondent).

On 2 June 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent does 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 Liban Ibrahim 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.

The Applicant also sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS). Mr Michael M Michael, the Managing Director of CiVs has provided a statutory declaration setting out that he would carry out the functions of the protected ballot agent for CiVS, and that he has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. I am satisfied that CiVS is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Michael and CiVS are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVs has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and Mr Michael and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

Therefore I appoint CiVS as the protected action ballot agent.

An order has been separately issued in PR742251.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought a protected action ballot order against Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle. The matter was heard by Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission on 2 June 2022. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot in relation to certain employees of the Respondent. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The Deputy President was required to decide whether the requirements for a protected action ballot under section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Applicant provided a declaration from Liban Ibrahim, setting out the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent, and that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement. The Deputy President was satisfied that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met and that the requirements had been fulfilled. The Deputy President also needed to determine whether CiVS, proposed as the ballot agent, was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. The application included a statutory declaration from Mr Michael M Michael, the Managing Director of CiVS, stating that he would carry out the functions of the ballot agent and that he had relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. The Deputy President was satisfied that CiVS was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot.

The Deputy President appointed CiVS as the protected action ballot agent, as there was no opposition from the Respondent. CiVS agreed to be the ballot agent and Mr Michael and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot. An order has been separately issued in PR742251. The Deputy President also provided that CiVS is capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established