| [2022] FWC 785 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
United Workers’ Union
v
RSL Care RDNS Limited T/A Bolton Clarke and Bolton Clarke – Allity
(B2022/278)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 7 APRIL 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of RSL Care RDNS Limited.
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 RSL Care RDNS Limited T/A Bolton Clarke and Bolton Clarke – Allity (the Respondent).
On 7 April 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent would not object to the application subject to an amendment to question 2 of the draft order. On the same day, the Applicant confirmed it was agreeable to the proposed amendment to question 2.
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 Mr Alen Clifford 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.
The Applicant also sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. This course was not opposed by the Respondent. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd trading as CiVS (CiVS). Mr Michael M Michael, the Managing Director of CiVs has provided a statutory declaration setting out that he would carry out the functions of the protected ballot agent for CiVS, and that he has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots. I am satisfied that CiVS is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Michael and CiVS are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVs has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and Mr Michael and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.
Therefore I appoint CiVS as the protected action ballot agent.
An order has been separately issued in PR740133.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR740132>
- AGLC
- United Workers' Union v RSL Care RDNS Limited T/A Bolton Clarke and Bolton Clarke Allity [2022] FWC 785
- Case
- [2022] FWC 785
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the union had followed the necessary steps in bargaining with the respondent and had genuinely tried to reach an agreement. It was also satisfied that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. Regarding the ballot agent, the court was satisfied that CiVS was a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. The Managing Director of CiVS, Mr Michael M Michael, provided a statutory declaration outlining his experience in conducting protected action ballots and the company's capability to ensure the secrecy and security of the votes. CiVS agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and committed to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to handling information relating to the protected action ballot.
The court issued an order appointing CiVS as the protected action ballot agent. The union's application was approved, and an order was issued in PR740133. The Deputy President's decision was based on the material presented, including declarations from representatives of the union and CiVS, which demonstrated the union's good faith in bargaining and CiVS's capability to conduct a secure and efficient ballot.
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.