United Workers' Union v Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 997

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd

(B2022/361)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 2 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Blowflex Mouldings 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 Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 27 April 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 Pareen Minhas of the Applicant declared on 26 April 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 PR741147.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd. The application was made due to a dispute over proposed changes in employment conditions. The Commission was informed that Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd did not oppose the application. Given the lack of opposition, the Vice President, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter based on the written submissions without holding a hearing.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd, and whether the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. The Union needed to demonstrate that it had engaged in good faith negotiations and that there was a notification time for the proposed agreement. The Vice President considered the statutory declaration of Pareen Minhas of the Applicant, which outlined the bargaining process and the Union's efforts to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The Vice President found that the Union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement and had met the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act. The evidence provided by the Union, including the declaration of Pareen Minhas, demonstrated that the Union had taken appropriate steps in bargaining with Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd. Additionally, the Vice President was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted.

An order was issued in PR741147, permitting the Union to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd. The Vice President's decision was based on the material presented and the absence of opposition from the Respondent.

United Workers' Union v Blowflex Mouldings Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established