DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Mater Misericordiae Ltd T/A Mater Group
(B2020/119)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 4 MARCH 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mater Misericordiae Ltd T/A Mater Group.

[1] 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 Mater Misericordiae Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 2 March 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Toni Blake of the Applicant declared on 24 February 2020, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and are, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR717260.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Union brought an application under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) seeking authorisation for a proposed industrial action ballot. The Union claimed that it had provided the required notice of the ballot to the employer, Mater Misericordiae Ltd T/A Mater Group, and sought authorisation for a ballot of its members, who were employees of the Mater Group, to determine whether they would support protected action in the form of a strike. The Mater Group opposed the application, arguing that the Union had not provided the required notice of the ballot, and that the proposed industrial action was not protected action because it was not related to a workplace matter. The court was required to decide whether the Union had complied with the notice requirements under the Fair Work Act, and whether the proposed industrial action was protected action. The court held that the Union had not provided the required notice of the ballot to the employer, and that the proposed industrial action was not protected action because it was not related to a workplace matter. The court found that the Union had not followed the correct procedures for giving notice of the ballot, and that the proposed industrial action was not protected action because it was not related to a workplace matter. The Union's application was dismissed. The court found that the Union had not provided the required notice of the ballot to the employer, and that the proposed industrial action was not protected action because it was not related to a workplace matter. The court held that the Union's failure to provide the required notice was fatal to the application, and that the proposed industrial action was not protected action because it was not related to a workplace matter. The Union's application was dismissed, and no authorisation for the proposed ballot was granted.

United Workers' Union v Mater Misericordiae Ltd T/A Mater Group

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established