United Workers' Union v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd

Case [2022] FWC 2172


[2022] FWC 2172

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Linfox Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/1230)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 17 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd.

  1. 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 Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

  1. On 16 August 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent does not object to the application.

  1. In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Daniel Draicchio 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Therefore I appoint CiVS as the protected action ballot agent.

  1. An order has been separately issued in PR744850.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR744849>

Details
AGLC
United Workers' Union v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2172
Case
[2022] FWC 2172
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) for a protected action ballot order regarding certain employees of Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing. The Applicant sought to conduct a ballot to potentially undertake protected action, and also sought the appointment of a ballot agent other than the Australian Electoral Commission.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, whether the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied, and whether the proposed ballot agent, Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS), was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. The Commission was satisfied, based on the material before it, that the notification time had been met and the requirements of section 443(1) were satisfied. The Commission also found that CiVS was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot and that it was capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously.

The Commission appointed CiVS as the protected action ballot agent and ordered that CiVS be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. CiVS has 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 protected action ballot. An order has been separately issued in PR744850.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.