United Workers' Union v Monroe Australia Pty Ltd T/A Monroe

[2022] FWC 2475

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Monroe Australia Pty Ltd T/A Monroe

(B2022/1384)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 15 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Monroe Australia Pty Ltd T/A Monroe.

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 Monroe Australia Pty Ltd trading as Monroe (Respondent).

On 15 September 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object 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 declaration of Mr Darren Roberts 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR745890.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission, in the case of United Workers' Union v Monroe Australia Pty Ltd, addressed an application for a protected action ballot under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The United Workers' Union, the applicant, sought the order in relation to certain employees of Monroe Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Monroe, the respondent. The crux of the dispute was the union's desire to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action among its members, seeking to address a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement.

The legal issues central to this case involved verifying whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and if the requisite notification time had been provided as per section 443(1) of the Act. The court needed to ensure that the union's actions were compliant with the statutory requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly concerning the procedures for protected industrial action.

The Deputy President, Clancy, examined the material presented, including the declaration by Mr. Darren Roberts of the United Workers' Union. This declaration detailed the union's bargaining efforts and its genuine attempts to reach an agreement with Monroe Australia Pty Ltd. The Deputy President was satisfied that the union had indeed fulfilled its obligations under the Act, particularly regarding the notification time and the conditions outlined in section 443(1). Consequently, the court granted the application, deeming it appropriate to issue the protected action ballot order without the necessity of a hearing, as the respondent did not object to the application. This decision was formalized in PR745890, reflecting the commission's approval of the union's request.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established