United Workers' Union v Bremick Pty Ltd

[2023] FWC 1331

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Bremick Pty Ltd

(B2023/529)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 5 JUNE 2023

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

The Respondent neither consented nor objected 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 statutory declaration of Aaron James Behmer of the Applicant declared on 5 June 2023, 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 PR762824.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with an application by the United Workers’ Union under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking an order for a protected action ballot for certain employees of Bremick Pty Ltd. The application was made on the basis that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer, and that the statutory notification period had been satisfied. Bremick Pty Ltd neither consented to nor objected against the application. The Vice President, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter based on the provided documentation without the need for a hearing.

The central legal issue that the court needed to address was whether the union had fulfilled the prerequisites for a protected action ballot as stipulated in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to verify if the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and if the required notification period had been adhered to. The union's statutory declaration, which outlined its bargaining efforts and the fulfillment of the notification requirement, was a pivotal element of the decision-making process.

Upon reviewing the evidence, Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the union had indeed been making genuine efforts to reach an agreement and that the notification period had been appropriately observed. Consequently, the court was satisfied that the union had met the necessary criteria for the protected action ballot. An order was issued in a separate document, PR762824, authorising the ballot as requested by the union.

The court's decision was concise and centred on the documentation provided by the union. The Vice President determined that no hearing was required and proceeded to grant the application based on the merits of the presented case. The order, issued in PR762824, authorised the protected action ballot, allowing the union to proceed with the proposed industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established