United Workers' Union v Hospira Australia Pty Limited trading as Pfizer

[2025] FWC 1172

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Workers' Union
v

Hospira Australia Pty Limited trading as Pfizer

(B2025/673)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 29 APRIL 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hospira Australia Pty Limited Trading As Pfizer

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (UWU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Hospira Australia Pty Limited trading as Pfizer (Pfizer or Employer).

On 28 April 2025, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, 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 Evalyn Clow, Union Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the UWU in bargaining with the Employer and that Pfizer has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Hospira, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

The ballot is to be conducted by Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd (FairVote). FairVote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 20 May 2025.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

An Order has been separately issued in PR786483.

This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] This is, in effect, 15 working days from the making of the Order and was the period sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers’ Union (UWU) made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Hospira Australia Pty Limited, trading as Pfizer. The application was made in the context of ongoing negotiations for an enterprise agreement. Pfizer, the employer, did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President Hampton to determine the matter on the submitted documents without a hearing. The proposed ballot aimed to ascertain the employees' views on potential protected actions, including strikes or stoppages, in the event that negotiations did not yield a satisfactory agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the application met the requirements set out in section 443 of the Act for a protected action ballot order. This involved confirming that the notification time for the proposed agreement was met, that the UWU had taken necessary steps in bargaining with Pfizer, and that Pfizer had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement. The UWU provided a declaration from Evalyn Clow, a union organiser, detailing the bargaining process and Pfizer's efforts to negotiate. The Deputy President also had to ensure that the ballot agent, Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd, was approved under section 468A of the Act.

The Deputy President concluded that the application fulfilled all the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The determination included setting the closing date for voting as 20 May 2025, which also defined the ballot period. An order was separately issued in PR786483. The matter was referred to another Commission member to conduct a compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A of the Act, with directions likely to be issued to ensure meaningful negotiations.

In conclusion, the Deputy President issued an order approving the ballot, specifying the closing date for voting, and assigning the compulsory conciliation conference to another Commission member. This decision aimed to facilitate a resolution through negotiation while allowing employees to express their views on the proposed agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established