United Workers' Union v Manildra Flour Mills Summary

[2022] FWC 736

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Manildra Flour Mills

(B2022/253)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 1 APRIL 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Manildra Flour Mills

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 Manildra Flour Mills (Respondent).

On 30 March 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent neither opposes nor consents 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 statutory declaration of Pareen Minhas of the Applicant declared on 29 March 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 PR739940.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the United Workers' Union, seeking a protected action ballot order for certain employees of Manildra Flour Mills. The Union applied under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which pertains to protected action ballots. The application was made in relation to ongoing negotiations and a proposed agreement between the Union and the Respondent, with the Union asserting it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement. Manildra Flour Mills neither opposed nor consented to the application, leading the Commission to proceed with the matter based on the provided documentation without a hearing.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the conditions for a protected action ballot were satisfied. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the Union had genuinely been attempting to reach an agreement with Manildra Flour Mills and if the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met as per section 443(1) of the Act. The Commission based its decision on a statutory declaration by Pareen Minhas of the Union, outlining the steps taken in bargaining and the Union's ongoing efforts to reach an agreement.

In making its decision, the Commission found that the Union had genuinely been attempting to negotiate with Manildra Flour Mills and had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The Commission noted that Manildra Flour Mills neither opposed nor consented to the application, which facilitated the Commission's decision to proceed without a hearing. The Vice President was satisfied with the evidence provided, including the statutory declaration, which detailed the Union's efforts and the timing of the proposed agreement. Consequently, the Commission determined that the conditions for a protected action ballot were met.

The Commission issued an Order in PR739940, allowing the protected action ballot to proceed. This decision underscores the importance of the Union's genuine efforts in negotiations and the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act. The Commission's decision was based on the evidence provided and the absence of any opposition from Manildra Flour Mills.

United Workers' Union v Manildra Flour Mills

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established