United Workers' Union v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2023] FWC 745

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers' Union
v

The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd

(B2023/258)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 28 MARCH 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the GEO Group Australia 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 the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 22 March 2023, 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 Liam Orr of the Applicant declared on 20 March 2023, 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 PR760664.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was presented with an application by the United Workers' Union, seeking a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and it sought to facilitate a ballot on proposed protected action by the employees. The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd did not oppose the application, allowing the matter to be decided on the papers submitted without the need for a hearing.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the notification period required by the Fair Work Act had been met. The Court had to consider the statutory declaration provided by the union, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and confirmed the union's genuine attempts to reach an agreement. Additionally, the Court had to determine if the union had fulfilled the notification time requirements as stipulated in section 443(1) of the Act.

In assessing the evidence, the Vice President of the Fair Work Commission concluded that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification period had been met. Based on the material presented, the Vice President was satisfied that the requirements of the Act had been fulfilled. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was approved.

An Order was issued in PR760664, allowing the United Workers' Union to proceed with the protected action ballot as requested. The Fair Work Commission's decision was made on the basis of the evidence provided and the absence of opposition from The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd.

United Workers' Union v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established