United Workers' Union v BDD Milk Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2064

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

BDD Milk Pty Ltd

(B2022/1165)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 4 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BDD Milk 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 BDD Milk Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 1 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 Louise Dillon of the Applicant declared on 29 July 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 PR744489.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union (Union) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an order permitting a ballot of its members employed by BDD Milk Pty Ltd (BDD) to approve protected action in relation to an enterprise agreement. BDD did not oppose the application. The matter was determined on the papers.

The Union submitted that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with BDD and that the statutory notification period had been met. The Union also provided a statutory declaration from Louise Dillon, who outlined the bargaining process and the Union's efforts to reach an agreement with BDD. The legal issue for the FWC to decide was whether the Union had met the requirements of the Act for a protected action ballot.

The FWC found that the Union had met the requirements of the Act, including the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and the requirement under section 443(1) of the Act. The FWC noted that BDD had not opposed the application and that the Union had provided evidence of its efforts to reach an agreement. The FWC concluded that the Union had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot and made the order sought.

The FWC made an order permitting the Union to hold a ballot of its members employed by BDD to approve protected action in relation to an enterprise agreement. The order was issued separately as PR744489.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established