United Workers' Union v Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd

[2023] FWC 374

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers' Union
v

Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd

(B2023/108)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

MELBOURNE, 15 FEBRUARY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Prysmian Australia 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 Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 15 February 2023, 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 Sukanya Ananth of the Applicant declared on 13 February 2023, 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 PR750622.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the United Workers' Union against Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd. The union sought an order to conduct a protected action ballot for certain employees of the respondent. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent did not oppose the application, and the matter was decided on the papers without a hearing.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act and if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The union submitted a statutory declaration by Sukanya Ananth, outlining the union's efforts in bargaining with the respondent and confirming its genuine attempts to reach an agreement. The Commission was required to determine if these efforts were sufficient to meet the legislative criteria.

The Vice President of the Commission found that the union had indeed met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. Based on the material provided, including the statutory declaration, the Vice President was satisfied that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the respondent. Consequently, the Commission decided to grant the union's application for a protected action ballot order.

An Order was issued in PR750622, allowing the United Workers' Union to proceed with the protected action ballot for the specified employees of Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd. This decision was made in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and the evidence presented before the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established