United Workers' Union v Alto Manufacturing Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2790

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Alto Manufacturing Pty Ltd

(B2022/1566)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 18 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Alto Manufacturing Pty Ltd.

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 Alto Manufacturing Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 18 October 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 Shara Teo 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 PR746943.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the United Workers' Union for an order allowing a ballot of employees of Alto Manufacturing Pty Ltd regarding proposed protected action. The Union sought the ballot under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the matter was determined without a hearing as the employer did not object to the application. The Union submitted documentation demonstrating its efforts to negotiate with the employer and that the statutory requirements for the ballot were satisfied.

The legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the conditions under section 437 of the Fair Work Act had been met, specifically whether the Union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and if a notification period had elapsed. The Union provided a declaration from Shara Teo, outlining the negotiation process and asserting the Union's good faith efforts. The Deputy President reviewed the evidence and found that the Union had met the statutory criteria.

After reviewing the evidence, the Deputy President determined that the Union had genuinely tried to negotiate with the employer and that the notification period had passed. Consequently, the Deputy President was satisfied that the Union met the requirements under section 437 of the Act. An order was issued in accordance with the application, permitting the Union to proceed with the ballot of the employees. This order was issued separately under reference PR746943.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established