United Workers' Union v Metso Outotec Australia Limited

[2022] FWC 1020

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Metso Outotec Australia Limited

(B2022/359)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 4 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Metso Outotec Australia Limited

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 Metso Outotec Australia Limited (Respondent).

On 26 April 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Louise Dillon of the Applicant declared on 22 April 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 PR741198.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Metso Outotec Australia Limited. The application was made following negotiations between the Union and the Respondent regarding a proposed agreement. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing. The Union sought the order to allow its members to vote on taking protected action, which includes strikes and other industrial action, in relation to the proposed agreement.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the Union had met the requirements of the Fair Work Act for conducting a protected action ballot. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and whether the Union had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Respondent. The Union argued that it had met these requirements and provided evidence to support its claim.

The Commission found that the Union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the Union had followed the necessary steps in bargaining with the Respondent and met the requirements of the Fair Work Act for conducting a protected action ballot. The Commission noted the statutory declaration of Louise Dillon of the Union, which outlined the steps taken by the Union in bargaining with the Respondent.

The Fair Work Commission issued an Order in PR741198, allowing the United Workers' Union to conduct a protected action ballot in relation to the proposed agreement. The Order was made on the basis of the material before the Commission, including the statutory declaration of Louise Dillon of the Union and the Respondent's lack of opposition to the application. The Commission determined that the Union had met the requirements of the Fair Work Act for conducting a protected action ballot and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established