United Workers' Union v Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 516

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd

(B2022/164)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd.

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

On 8 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent 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 Ms Belinda Jacobi of the Applicant 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 PR739126.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the United Workers' Union, acting as the applicant, sought a protected action ballot order from Fuchs Lubricants (Australasia) Pty Ltd. This application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, concerning the proposed industrial action by certain employees of Fuchs Lubricants. The application was filed to address the union's assertion that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer, and that the conditions for a protected action ballot were met. Fuchs Lubricants did not oppose the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter based on the submitted documentation without the necessity of a hearing.

The central legal issues before the court involved confirming whether the union had fulfilled the requirements set out in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act. This included verifying that the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and determining if there was indeed a notification period as stipulated in the Act. The court's role was to assess the evidence provided by the union, specifically the declaration from Ms. Belinda Jacobi, to ascertain whether the conditions for a protected action ballot were met.

Upon reviewing the documentation and the union's declaration, the Deputy President concluded that the union had indeed been genuinely negotiating with Fuchs Lubricants. Additionally, the Deputy President found that a notification period existed, and the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. Consequently, the court issued a protected action ballot order. This decision was communicated through a separate order issued in PR739126.

This decision highlights the Fair Work Commission's role in facilitating fair industrial relations by ensuring that the processes for protected action are properly followed and that both parties have genuinely attempted to resolve their differences through negotiation. The Deputy President's findings underscore the importance of meeting statutory requirements and the need for thorough documentation to support claims of genuine negotiation efforts.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established