United Workers' Union v IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd T/A IKEA

[2022] FWC 2369

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd T/A IKEA

(B2022/1298)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd T/A IKEA

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 IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd T/A IKEA (Respondent).

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 Pareen Minhas of the Applicant declared on 24 August 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 PR745545.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the United Workers’ Union for an order permitting a protected action ballot of employees of IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd, trading as IKEA. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Respondent, IKEA Distribution Services Australia Pty Ltd, did not oppose the application. The Vice President of the Commission, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. The Union sought the order to allow its members to vote on potential protected action, including strike action, due to ongoing disputes in bargaining with IKEA.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had satisfied the conditions set out in section 443(1) of the Act, which relate to the notification time for the proposed agreement and the Union's good-faith efforts in bargaining. The Union submitted that it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with IKEA and had complied with the notification time requirements. The Commission needed to assess the evidence provided by the Union, particularly the statutory declaration of Pareen Minhas, to determine if the conditions were met.

The Vice President found that the Union had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with IKEA. The statutory declaration outlined the steps taken in the bargaining process and confirmed that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. Consequently, the Vice President was satisfied that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. An Order was issued to permit the protected action ballot, and this decision was documented in PR745545.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the United Workers’ Union's application for a protected action ballot order, finding that the Union had met the necessary conditions under the Fair Work Act. The Commission's decision was based on the evidence presented, which demonstrated the Union's good-faith efforts in bargaining and compliance with the notification time requirements. The specific order was documented in PR745545, and the Union was authorised to proceed with the ballot as requested.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established