United Workers' Union v Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd T/A Goodman Fielder

[2022] FWC 2574

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd T/A Goodman Fielder

(B2022/1448)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd T/A Goodman Fielder.

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 Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd T/A Goodman Fielder (Respondent).

On 26 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 Pareen Minhas 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 PR746191.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers’ Union (Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order allowing a protected action ballot to be held among certain employees of Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd T/A Goodman Fielder (Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the dispute arose out of negotiations between the Applicant and the Respondent over a proposed agreement. The matter was heard by Deputy President Clancy in Melbourne on 26 September 2022, and the Respondent did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter based on the documentation submitted.

The key legal issues before the Deputy President were whether the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. These requirements include that the applicant union has been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer, in this case the Respondent, and that the union has taken certain steps in its bargaining efforts. The Deputy President considered the declaration of Pareen Minhas of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken by the union in its negotiations with the Respondent and confirmed that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement.

The Deputy President found that the notification time had been met and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. Based on the material before him, including the declaration of Pareen Minhas, the Deputy President was satisfied that the Applicant had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the Respondent and had taken the necessary steps in its bargaining efforts. An order was issued in PR746191, allowing the protected action ballot to proceed.

The Fair Work Commission, under Deputy President Clancy, determined that the application for a protected action ballot met the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer. An order was issued in PR746191, permitting the protected action ballot to proceed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established