United Workers' Union v PFD Food Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 1634

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

PFD Food Services Pty Ltd

(B2022/603)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PFD Food Services Pty Ltd

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 PFD Food Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 22 June 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. I have considered correspondence sent by the parties.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Martin de Rooy of the Applicant declared on 21 June 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 PR743056.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers’ Union applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order allowing a ballot of certain employees of PFD Food Services Pty Ltd regarding protected action. The Commission was informed that the respondent did not oppose the application. The matter was determined on the papers without a hearing, and the Commission considered the correspondence sent by the parties. The application was based on the statutory declaration of Martin de Rooy of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken by the Union in bargaining with the Respondent and confirmed that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent.

The primary legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met for the proposed protected action ballot. The Commission needed to consider whether the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met and whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. The Commission also needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence that the Union had genuinely been trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

The Commission found that the requirements of section 437 of the Act had been met, and that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. The Commission was satisfied that the Union had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, based on the statutory declaration of Martin de Rooy. The Commission concluded that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied and that an Order should be issued for a protected action ballot.

The Fair Work Commission issued an Order allowing a ballot of the employees of PFD Food Services Pty Ltd regarding protected action. The Order was issued in accordance with section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and was based on the evidence provided by the Union that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. The Order was issued separately in PR743056.

United Workers' Union v PFD Food Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established