United Workers' Union v Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 1505

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd

(B2022/572)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd

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 Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 15 June 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 Damien Davie of the Applicant declared on 10 June 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 PR742651.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission, presided over by Vice President Catanzariti, dealt with an application by the United Workers’ Union against Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd, under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union sought an order for a protected action ballot in relation to certain employees of Secureclean. The Union aimed to proceed with the ballot after unsuccessful negotiations with Secureclean regarding an enterprise agreement. The Union contended that it had genuinely tried to reach an agreement and met the statutory requirements for a ballot. The proceedings took place in Sydney on 15 June 2022.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the Union had fulfilled the statutory requirements to conduct a protected action ballot, particularly under sections 437 and 443 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union needed to demonstrate that it had been genuinely attempting to negotiate in good faith with the employer and that it had met the notification time prescribed by the Act. Furthermore, the Commission had to consider if the Union had adequately provided notice to the employer and other stakeholders, as required by the legislation.

Vice President Catanzariti found that the Union had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate its efforts in bargaining with Secureclean and had met the notification time required by the Act. The Union's statutory declaration, including the details of its negotiations and its good faith efforts, was accepted as satisfactory. The Commission concluded that the Union had met all necessary statutory requirements and granted the application for a protected action ballot. The decision was made on the papers without the need for a hearing, as Secureclean did not oppose the application.

The Fair Work Commission issued an Order in PR742651, allowing the Union to proceed with the ballot for protected action, in accordance with the statutory provisions. The decision was communicated to the parties, and an Order was issued to permit the ballot to take place, affirming the Union's right to conduct the ballot under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established