United Workers' Union v Golden Circle Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 689

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Golden Circle Ltd

(B2022/223)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

BRISBANE, 29 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Golden Circle 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 Golden Circle Ltd (Respondent).

On 24 March 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 Martin de Rooy of the Applicant declared on 23 March 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 PR739776.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide on an application by the United Workers’ Union for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Golden Circle Ltd. The union sought the order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, to allow its members to take industrial action. Golden Circle Ltd did not oppose the application.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had fulfilled the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act, which mandates that the union has been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer. The union claimed it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement, and submitted a statutory declaration by Martin de Rooy to substantiate this claim. The employer did not contest the union's assertions.

The Vice President was satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that the union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer. The Vice President determined that the union had met the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and had fulfilled the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. As a result, the Vice President decided to grant the union's application for a protected action ballot order without holding a hearing. An order was subsequently issued in PR739776, authorising the union to conduct the ballot.

United Workers' Union v Golden Circle Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established