United Workers' Union v Hospira Australia Pty Ltd T/A Pfizer Melbourne

[2022] FWC 2612

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Hospira Australia Pty Ltd T/A Pfizer Melbourne

(B2022/1461)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hospira Australia Pty Ltd T/A Pfizer Melbourne.

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 Hospira Australia Pty Ltd T/A Pfizer Melbourne (Respondent).

On 28 September 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 Shara Teo 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.

The Applicant also sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS). Mr Michael M Michael, the Managing Director of CiVs has provided a statutory declaration setting out that he would carry out the functions of the protected ballot agent for CiVS, and that he has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. I am satisfied that CiVS is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Michael and CiVS are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVs has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and Mr Michael and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

Therefore I appoint CiVS as the protected action ballot agent.

An order has been separately issued in PR746288.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has granted an application by the United Workers’ Union to conduct a protected action ballot for certain employees of Hospira Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Pfizer Melbourne. The Union had applied under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a ballot order after having been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the employer. The employer did not object to the application and the matter was determined on the papers. The Deputy President was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had passed and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Union also sought for Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS to be the ballot agent rather than the Australian Electoral Commission, a request which the employer did not oppose.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the employer and whether the proposed ballot agent was fit and proper to conduct the ballot. The Deputy President was satisfied that the Union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach agreement, and that CiVS was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. The Managing Director of CiVS provided a statutory declaration confirming that he would carry out the functions of the ballot agent and that he had relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. The Deputy President was also satisfied that CiVS was capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVS agreed to be the ballot agent and is bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the ballot.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the Union’s application for a protected action ballot and appointed CiVS as the ballot agent. The Deputy President found that the Union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the employer and that CiVS was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. The Commission’s decision was made on the papers without holding a hearing, as the employer did not object to the application. The order appointing CiVS as the ballot agent is issued separately.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established