United Workers' Union v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd T/A Iplex Pipelines Summary

[2022] FWC 1577

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd T/A Iplex Pipelines

(B2022/598)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 21 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd T/A Iplex Pipelines.

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 Ltd T/A Iplex Pipelines (the Respondent).

On 21 June 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 Sukanya Anantharaman 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 PR742888.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Iplex Pipelines. The application was made on the basis of a dispute regarding a proposed agreement. The Respondent did not object to the application, allowing the matter to be determined on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues before the Court were whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The Court had to assess the material before it, including the declaration of Sukanya Anantharaman of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken by the Union in bargaining with the Respondent and that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The Court found that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Based on the material before the Court, including the declaration of Sukanya Anantharaman of the Applicant, it was satisfied that the Union had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. Therefore, the Court decided to grant the application.

An order has been separately issued in PR742888, allowing the United Workers' Union to proceed with the protected action ballot concerning the employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd.

United Workers' Union v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd T/A Iplex Pipelines

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established