United Workers' Union v FMC Manufacturing Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2480

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

FMC Manufacturing Pty Ltd

(B2022/1383)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2022

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

On 15 September 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 Sukanya Anantharaman of the Applicant declared on 14 September 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 PR745898.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has adjudicated on an application by the United Workers' Union under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant sought a protected action ballot order for specific employees of FMC Manufacturing Pty Ltd. The application was made in the context of ongoing negotiations between the union and the employer, aimed at reaching an agreement. FMC Manufacturing Pty Ltd did not oppose the application, prompting the Commission to decide the matter based on the submitted documents without a formal hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and if the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot had been satisfied. The union argued that it had been in good faith negotiations and that the necessary notification period had been observed as stipulated by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act. The evidence presented, including a statutory declaration by Sukanya Anantharaman, outlined the union's efforts in bargaining and its commitment to reaching an agreement with the employer.

The Vice President, Catanzariti, reviewed the provided materials and was satisfied that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification period had been appropriately observed. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was approved. The decision was made on the basis of the statutory declaration and the absence of opposition from FMC Manufacturing Pty Ltd.

In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission issued an order permitting the protected action ballot for the employees of FMC Manufacturing Pty Ltd, as requested by the United Workers' Union. This decision underscores the Commission's role in facilitating fair and lawful industrial actions within the framework of the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established