United Workers' Union v Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma

Case [2022] FWC 1983


[2022] FWC 1983

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma

(B2022/1138)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 27 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma.

  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 Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma (the Respondent).

  1. On 26 June 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 Ms Tanya Champs 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 PR744231.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR744230>

Details
AGLC
United Workers' Union v Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma [2022] FWC 1983
Case
[2022] FWC 1983
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers’ Union applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Union sought for a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission to be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. The Respondent did not object to the application and the matter was 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 in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Additionally, the court had to determine if the proposed ballot agent, Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS, was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot and if they were capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and conducting the ballot expeditiously.

The court found that the Union had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The court was also satisfied that CiVS was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot and that Mr Michael and CiVS were capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVS had agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and was bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

The court appointed CiVS as the protected action ballot agent. An order was separately issued in PR744231.

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.