United Workers' Union v Churches of Christ Care Summary

[2022] FWC 707

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Churches of Christ Care

(B2022/232)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

BRISBANE, 31 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot Churches of Christ Care

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 Churches of Christ Care (Respondent).

On 25 March 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 Kylie Muscat of the Applicant declared on 23 March 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 PR739851.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the United Workers’ Union (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Churches of Christ Care (the Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Applicant sought the order to facilitate a ballot of its members regarding proposed protected action. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was decided on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the Applicant had genuinely been trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and whether the statutory notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The Commission had to examine the evidence provided by the Applicant, including the statutory declaration of Kylie Muscat, to determine if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. This included verifying that the notification time for the proposed agreement was met and that the Applicant had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the Respondent.

The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, concluded that the Applicant had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent, as evidenced by the statutory declaration and other material provided. The Vice President also found that the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. Consequently, the Commission determined that the requirements of the Act had been fulfilled. An Order was issued in PR739851 to allow the protected action ballot to proceed.

The Commission issued an Order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, permitting the United Workers’ Union to conduct a protected action ballot among its members concerning the proposed agreement with Churches of Christ Care. This decision ensures that the union can proceed with the ballot as part of the bargaining process, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Act.

United Workers' Union v Churches of Christ Care

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established