United Workers' Union v Terminals Pty Ltd T/A Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling Summary

[2022] FWC 2990

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Terminals Pty Ltd T/A Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling

(B2022/1670)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 10 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Terminals Pty Ltd Trading As Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling

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 Terminals Pty Ltd T/A Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling (Respondent).

On 7 November 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not intend to file any submissions.

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 Shane Reside of the Applicant declared on 4 November 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 PR747825.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the United Workers’ Union applied under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order regarding certain employees of Terminals Pty Ltd T/A Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling. The application was made because the Union had been in negotiations with the company to reach an agreement but was unable to do so. The company did not respond to the application, leading the Vice President to determine the matter based on the documents submitted by the Union.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the Union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the company and if the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. This involved verifying that the Union had followed the necessary steps to reach an agreement and that the timing for a ballot was appropriate. The Union provided a statutory declaration from Shane Reside that outlined the bargaining process and the steps taken to reach an agreement, which formed the basis of the court's decision.

After reviewing the evidence, the Vice President found that the Union had indeed been genuinely attempting to negotiate with the company and that the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. Consequently, the court approved the application for a protected action ballot. The decision was made without a hearing because the company did not submit any arguments against the application.

The court issued an order for a protected action ballot, enabling the Union to proceed with the ballot among its members to determine the next steps in the dispute. This order was issued separately, as noted in the court’s decision.

United Workers' Union v Terminals Pty Ltd T/A Quantem Bulk Liquid Storage and Handling

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established