United Workers' Union v Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd T/A Secureclean Qld Summary

[2022] FWC 2277

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd T/A Secureclean Qld

(B2022/1259)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 26 AUGUST 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 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 23 August 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 23 August 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 PR745213.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought an order for a protected action ballot in relation to employees of Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made on the basis that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer but had been unable to do so. Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd did not oppose the application, resulting in the Fair Work Commission deciding to determine the matter on the available documentation without a hearing.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had satisfied the requirements of the Fair Work Act to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the Commission needed to ascertain if the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and if the statutory notification period had been met. The determination hinged on the union's statutory declaration and the evidence of bargaining efforts provided by the union.

The Deputy President, Asbury, concluded that the union had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The evidence, including the union's statutory declaration, demonstrated that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer. Furthermore, the notification period had been satisfied. Consequently, the Deputy President issued an order permitting the union to proceed with the ballot.

United Workers' Union v Secureclean (Qld) Pty Ltd T/A Secureclean Qld

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established