United Workers' Union v MPS Hold Co. Pty Ltd T/A MPS Summary

[2022] FWC 1388

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

MPS Hold Co. Pty Ltd T/A MPS

(B2022/514)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 2 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of MPS Hold Co. Pty Ltd T/A MPS.

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 MPS Hold Co. Pty Ltd T/A MPS (the Respondent).

On 2 June 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 Ms Anna Thwaites 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 PR742255.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission recently addressed an application by the United Workers' Union (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of MPS Hold Co. Pty Ltd T/A MPS (the Respondent). The matter, adjudicated on 2 June 2022, was brought under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking authorisation for the proposed protected action ballot. Notably, the Respondent did not object to the application, prompting the Deputy President to proceed with the determination based on the provided documentation without a hearing.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was valid and if the conditions outlined in section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. The Applicant needed to demonstrate that it had genuinely engaged in bargaining with the Respondent and was attempting to reach an agreement. The Commission was tasked with assessing the evidence presented to determine if these criteria were met.

Upon reviewing the material submitted, including the declaration of Ms Anna Thwaites of the Applicant, the Deputy President found that the Applicant had indeed taken the necessary steps in bargaining with the Respondent and had been genuinely striving to reach an agreement. Furthermore, the Commission was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement was appropriate and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. Consequently, the application was successful.

The Commission issued an order authorizing the protected action ballot, as separately detailed in PR742255. This decision underscores the importance of genuine bargaining efforts and adherence to statutory requirements in the context of protected actions under the Fair Work Act.

United Workers' Union v MPS Hold Co. Pty Ltd T/A MPS

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established