United Workers' Union v ContiTech Australia Pty Ltd T/A ContiTech

[2025] FWC 84

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Workers' Union
v

ContiTech Australia Pty Ltd T/A ContiTech

(B2025/21)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 10 JANUARY 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ContiTech Australia Pty Ltd T/A ContiTech

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (UWU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ContiTech Australia Pty Ltd (ContiTech Australia or Employer).

On 9 January 2025, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, 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 Steve Howie, Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the UWU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with ContiTech Australia, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

The ballot is to be conducted by TrueVote Pty Ltd (TrueVote). TrueVote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 24 January 2025.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

An Order has been separately issued in PR783137.

This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] This is, in effect, 10 working days from the making of the Order and was the period sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union (UWU) made an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order against ContiTech Australia Pty Ltd, trading as ContiTech. The application aimed to facilitate a ballot of the employees regarding a proposed enterprise agreement. ContiTech Australia did not object to the application, and the matter was determined by the Fair Work Commission on the submitted documentation without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to resolve was whether the UWU had satisfied the conditions under section 443 of the Act for a protected action ballot. This involved confirming that the UWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with ContiTech Australia and that all procedural requirements were met, including the timing of the notification and the involvement of an approved ballot agent. The Commission also needed to set a closing date for the voting period.

The Fair Work Commission found that the UWU had met all the necessary criteria for a protected action ballot. The declaration by Steve Howie, the Organiser of the UWU, demonstrated the union's genuine efforts to negotiate with ContiTech Australia. Furthermore, the Commission confirmed that the notification period for the proposed agreement had been properly observed and that all requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. The ballot was to be conducted by TrueVote Pty Ltd, an approved agent under section 468A of the Act. The Commission set 24 January 2025 as the closing date for the voting period, which aligns with the period sought in the application.

As a result of the Commission's decision, an order was issued for the ballot to proceed. The matter will be assigned to another member of the Commission to conduct a compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A of the Act, aimed at facilitating meaningful negotiations between the parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established