United Workers' Union v Hall & Prior Aged Care Organisation

[2022] FWC 710

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Hall & Prior Aged Care Organisation

(B2022/235)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

BRISBANE, 30 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hall & Prior Aged Care Organisation

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 Hall & Prior Aged Care Organisation (Respondent).

On 25 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 Alison Humphry of the Applicant declared on 24 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 PR739857.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application from the United Workers' Union, which sought to conduct a ballot of its members employed by Hall & Prior Aged Care Organisation. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which permits unions to hold a ballot for protected industrial action if certain conditions are met. The union claimed that it had been attempting to reach an agreement with the employer but had been unsuccessful. The employer, in turn, did not oppose the application, indicating its consent to the proposed ballot.

The central legal issue for the Commission to address was whether the union had fulfilled the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The union submitted a statutory declaration from one of its representatives, which outlined the steps taken during the bargaining process and confirmed the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the employer.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the evidence presented, including the statutory declaration and the lack of opposition from the employer. The Commission was satisfied that the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and that the notification time requirement had been met. Consequently, the Commission granted the union's application for a protected action ballot.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order allowing the United Workers' Union to proceed with the ballot for protected industrial action among its members employed by Hall & Prior Aged Care Organisation. The decision underscored the importance of genuine bargaining efforts and the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act when seeking to conduct a protected action ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established