United Workers' Union v Gibson's Limited T/A Skretting Australia Summary

[2023] FWC 85

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Gibson’s Limited T/A Skretting Australia

(B2023/26)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 12 JANUARY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Gibson’s Limited T/A Skretting Australia.

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 Gibson’s Limited T/A Skretting Australia (Respondent).

On 12 January 2023, 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 Mr Sheldon Luke Oski 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 PR749607.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of United Workers' Union versus Gibson’s Limited T/A Skretting Australia, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining an application for a protected action ballot order regarding specific employees of Gibson's Limited. The Union, represented by the Applicant, sought to organise a ballot to authorise potential protected actions, such as strikes or lock-outs, due to ongoing disputes in their negotiations with the Respondent over certain employment terms. The Respondent, in this case, Gibson's Limited, did not object to the application, allowing the Deputy President to decide the matter based on the written submissions and evidence presented.

The primary legal issue the Commission had to resolve was whether the Union had genuinely attempted to negotiate in good faith with the Respondent and if the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot were fulfilled. The Union's declaration, along with the evidence of its efforts to reach an agreement, was scrutinised to determine if the notification period for the proposed agreement was correctly observed and if all the conditions of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 were met. The Commission had to ensure that the Union's actions were within the legal framework intended to protect the rights of both employers and employees.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Deputy President was satisfied that the Union had indeed been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement and that all statutory requirements had been adhered to. The Commission found that the Union had met the criteria necessary for the application of a protected action ballot order. Consequently, the application was approved, and an order was issued, permitting the Union to proceed with the ballot as requested.

The Fair Work Commission's decision resulted in an order being issued, allowing the United Workers' Union to conduct a protected action ballot among the specified employees of Gibson’s Limited T/A Skretting Australia. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that both parties in an employment dispute adhere to the legal processes designed to facilitate fair negotiations and dispute resolution.

United Workers' Union v Gibson's Limited T/A Skretting Australia

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established