United Workers' Union v SCT Opco Pty Ltd T/A SCT Logistics

[2024] FWC 2439

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Workers' Union
v

SCT Opco Pty Ltd T/A SCT Logistics

(B2024/1168)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 6 SEPTEMBER 2024

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of SCT Opco Pty Ltd

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (UWU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of SCT Opco Pty Ltd trading as SCT Logistics (SCT or Employer).

On 6 September 2024, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, 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 Gulshen (Julie) Kamber, Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the UWU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with SCT, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

The ballot is to be conducted by Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd (CiVS). CiVS has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 20 September 2024.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

The structure of the draft order has been amended to reflect the Fair Work Commission’s standard template. This has included leaving the ballot agent to determine the ballot timetable, in consultation with the parties.

An Order has been separately issued in PR779051.

This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] This is, in effect, ten (10) working days from the making of the Order, which is the maximum period sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the United Workers' Union (UWU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning employees of SCT Opco Pty Ltd, trading as SCT Logistics. The union sought to conduct a ballot for potential industrial action. SCT Logistics, the employer, did not object to the application, leading the Commission to determine the matter without a hearing. The Commission was satisfied that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act and was genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had taken the necessary steps to bargain with the employer and whether all the requirements for a protected action ballot were met. The Commission considered the declaration of Gulshen (Julie) Kamber, the union organiser, who detailed the bargaining process and the union's efforts to reach an agreement. The Commission also noted that Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd, the approved ballot agent, would conduct the ballot.

The Commission concluded that all requirements for the ballot were satisfied and determined the closing date for voting as 20 September 2024. The Commission also issued a separate order assigning the matter to another member for a compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A of the Act. This conference would require the attendance of all bargaining representatives to conduct meaningful negotiations. The Commission's decision ensured that the ballot process would proceed while also facilitating further negotiations between the parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established