United Workers' Union v Pfizer (Perth) Pty Limited Summary

[2022] FWC 1838

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Pfizer (Perth) Pty Limited

(B2022/671)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 14 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Pfizer (Perth) Pty 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 Pfizer (Perth) Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 13 July 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent neither consented nor objected 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 statutory declaration of Louise Dillon of the Applicant declared on 11 July 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 PR743761.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission recently decided on an application by the United Workers' Union, seeking to conduct a protected action ballot among certain employees of Pfizer (Perth) Pty Limited. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking approval for the ballot related to proposed industrial action. The Union submitted that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer, Pfizer, and had met the notification requirements as stipulated in section 443(1) of the Act. The employer neither consented to nor objected to the application, leading the Commission to determine the matter based on the submitted documentation without a hearing.

The legal issues at hand involved whether the Union had satisfied the prerequisites for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. This included demonstrating that it had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and that the statutory notification period had been met. The Commission examined the evidence, including a statutory declaration from Louise Dillon of the United Workers' Union, which outlined the bargaining efforts and compliance with notification requirements.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the Union had indeed met the legislative requirements. The Commission was satisfied that there was a notification period in place and that the Union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer. Therefore, the application for a protected action ballot was approved. The decision reflects the Commission's role in ensuring that industrial action processes are conducted in compliance with the Act and that the rights of both employers and employees are protected.

Consequently, an order was issued in PR743761, permitting the United Workers' Union to proceed with the ballot for the proposed industrial action. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in industrial relations proceedings and highlights the Commission's responsibility in facilitating lawful and fair industrial processes.

United Workers' Union v Pfizer (Perth) Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established