United Workers' Union v Arnotts Biscuits Ltd

[2022] FWC 633

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Arnotts Biscuits Ltd

(B2022/221)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 23 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Arnotts Biscuits 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 Arnotts Biscuits Ltd (the Respondent).

On 23 March 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 Benju Dulal 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 PR739576.

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 against Arnotts Biscuits Ltd, seeking an order for a protected action ballot. The Union sought to conduct a ballot among certain employees of Arnotts Biscuits Ltd, under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, to determine if they supported protected action. Arnotts Biscuits Ltd did not object to the application.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the Union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot, specifically whether there was a notification period and if the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Union had submitted a declaration by Benju Dulal, outlining the steps taken in bargaining and asserting that the Union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

In making the decision, the Deputy President considered the material before them, including the Union's declaration. The Deputy President was satisfied that there was a notification period and that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement. Therefore, the Deputy President decided to issue an order for the ballot. No hearing was deemed necessary as the Respondent did not object to the application. An order was issued separately in PR739576.

The Fair Work Commission granted the United Workers' Union's application for a protected action ballot. The Deputy President found that the Union had met the statutory requirements and issued the order accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established