| [2022] FWC 2566 |
| 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 Baking (Queensland)
(B2022/1441)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd T/A Goodman Fielder Baking (Queensland)
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 Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd T/A Goodman Fielder Baking (Queensland) (Respondent).
On 23 September 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.
On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Pareen Minhas of the Applicant declared on 21 September 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 PR746168.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR746169>
- AGLC
- United Workers' Union v Quality Bakers Australia Pty Ltd T/A Goodman Fielder Baking (Queensland) [2022] FWC 2566
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2566
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the United Workers' Union had satisfied the statutory requirements to hold a protected action ballot. This involved determining if there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and if the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer, as required by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The commission was also required to assess whether the union had fulfilled the conditions for a protected action ballot by examining the provided documentation, including the statutory declaration of Pareen Minhas, which detailed the union's bargaining efforts.
The Fair Work Commission, led by Vice President Catanzariti, decided to proceed with the determination based on the evidence presented, as the respondent did not oppose the application. The commission found that the union had taken appropriate steps in bargaining with the employer and had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement, thus fulfilling the statutory requirements. Consequently, the commission was satisfied that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement existed and that the union had met the criteria under section 443(1) of the Act.
The Fair Work Commission granted the application, issuing an order for the protected action ballot to proceed. This decision was made without a hearing, given the respondent's lack of opposition and the evidence provided by the union. The commission's decision was documented and issued separately, as evidenced by the separate order in PR746168.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.