United Workers' Union v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited

[2022] FWC 590

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited

(B2022/194)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 16 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited.

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 Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent).

On 11 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent objected to the application. However, on 16 March 2022, the parties were able to reach a consent position.

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 Belinda Jacobi 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR739384.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the United Workers’ Union made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited. The application was made in an effort to facilitate a ballot for the proposed protected action, which was related to certain employee-employer negotiations. The application was made on 11 March 2022, with the Respondent initially objecting to the application. However, the parties reached a consent position on 16 March 2022.

The primary legal issue that the Fair Work Commission needed to address was whether the conditions for a protected action ballot order were met, as per the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. In particular, the Commission had to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and if the conditions in section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. Additionally, the Deputy President needed to consider the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent, and whether the Applicant had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

Upon examining the material submitted, including the declaration of Ms Belinda Jacobi of the Applicant, the Deputy President was satisfied that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement existed, and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were met. The evidence indicated that the Applicant had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had taken appropriate steps in the bargaining process. In light of the consent position reached by the parties, the Deputy President determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission, led by Deputy President Clancy, ruled in favour of the United Workers’ Union's application for a protected action ballot order. This decision was based on the evidence provided, demonstrating that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement existed, and the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been fulfilled. An order has been separately issued in PR739384.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established