United Workers' Union v Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 450

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union

Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

(B2022/145)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

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 Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 1 March 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 Jasdev Kang 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 PR738897.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the United Workers’ Union (the Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made to facilitate industrial action by the employees in response to the negotiation of an enterprise agreement. The Respondent did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter on the papers without a hearing. The key issue was whether the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been met for the proposed protected action.

The Deputy President considered the declaration of Jasdev Kang from the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining with the Respondent and affirmed the Applicant's genuine efforts to reach an agreement. The Commission was satisfied that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and that the statutory requirements were met. This satisfaction was based on the material presented, including the declaration, and the absence of objections from the Respondent.

Given the satisfaction with the material provided and the lack of objections from the Respondent, the Deputy President determined that the application should be granted. The decision was made in light of the Applicant's demonstrated genuine attempt to reach an agreement with the Respondent and the compliance with the notification period stipulated in the Act. The Deputy President issued an order separately, as referenced in PR738897.

The Fair Work Commission granted the application for a protected action ballot order. The decision was made on the basis that the Applicant had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the Respondent and that the statutory requirements for notification were met. The order was issued separately in PR738897.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established