United Workers' Union v JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd T/A JB Hi-Fi Summary

[2023] FWC 851

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd T/A JB Hi-Fi

(B2023/327)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 6 APRIL 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd

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 JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd trading as JB Hi-Fi (Respondent).

On 6 April 2023, 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 Bella Himmelreich 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 PR760967.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with an application by the United Workers' Union, who sought a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd, trading as JB Hi-Fi. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission determined the matter without the need for a hearing, as the respondent, JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd, did not object to the application. The Deputy President, Clancy, assessed the case on the basis of the submitted material, which included a declaration by Ms Bella Himmelreich of the Applicant. This declaration outlined the steps taken by the Union in negotiations with the Respondent and confirmed that the Union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement.

The legal issues that the Commission needed to decide centred on whether the conditions for a protected action ballot were met. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the notification time for the proposed agreement was appropriate and if the requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. The Commission found that the Union's declaration, along with other submitted evidence, demonstrated that the Union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent. Additionally, the notification time for the proposed agreement appeared to be reasonable, and the requirements of the Act were satisfied.

In light of the evidence and the absence of objections from JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd, the Deputy President, Clancy, concluded that the requirements for a protected action ballot were met. Consequently, the application was approved, and an order was issued. The Commission's decision underscores the importance of genuine bargaining efforts and adherence to notification periods in the context of protected action ballots under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Deputy President's decision and order were communicated in PR760967, providing a formal record of the Commission's ruling.

United Workers' Union v JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Ltd T/A JB Hi-Fi

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established