United Workers' Union v FreshFood Management Services Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 919

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

FreshFood Management Services Pty Ltd

(B2022/328)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 21 APRIL 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of FreshFood Management Services 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 FreshFood Management Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 14 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 14 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 PR740545.

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 seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of FreshFood Management Services Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the Commission was informed that FreshFood Management Services Pty Ltd did not oppose the application. The matter was decided on the papers without a hearing due to the lack of opposition from the Respondent.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had fulfilled the requirements for a protected action ballot as set out in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and if the statutory notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The evidence submitted included a statutory declaration from Pareen Minhas of the United Workers' Union, detailing the union's bargaining efforts and the steps taken to reach an agreement with FreshFood Management Services Pty Ltd.

The Commission concluded that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and that the statutory notification period had been observed. Based on the material presented, the Vice President found that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. Consequently, the Commission granted the application for a protected action ballot order. An Order was issued in a separate document.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission determined that the United Workers' Union had met the necessary criteria to proceed with a protected action ballot, thereby allowing the employees to vote on potential industrial action. The Commission's decision was based on the union's efforts to negotiate with FreshFood Management Services Pty Ltd and adherence to the statutory notification period.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established