United Workers' Union v The Trustee for ePharmacy Unit Trust

[2023] FWC 876

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

The Trustee For ePharmacy Unit Trust

(B2023/336)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 13 APRIL 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of The Trustee for ePharmacy Unit Trust.

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of The Trustee For ePharmacy Unit Trust (Respondent).

On 13 April 2023 my Associate was advised that the Respondent 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 Ms Anna Thwaites of the Applicant 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 PR761072.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the United Workers' Union and The Trustee for ePharmacy Unit Trust was heard by the Fair Work Commission, specifically Deputy President Clancy, on 13 April 2023. The Union applied for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to organise a vote among certain employees of the ePharmacy Unit Trust. The Trustee did not object to the application, which facilitated the decision process. The Deputy President determined the case based on the documentation submitted, including the declaration from Ms. Anna Thwaites of the Union, affirming the Union's efforts to reach an agreement with the Trustee.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the conditions for a protected action ballot, as stipulated in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act, were met. This involved verifying that the Union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the Trustee and that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement. The Union's declaration played a crucial role in demonstrating its efforts and adherence to the Act's requirements.

After reviewing the evidence, Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the Union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Trustee and that the notification period was in place. Consequently, the Deputy President granted the application for a protected action ballot. This decision was supported by the lack of objection from the Trustee and the documentation provided by the Union. The Deputy President also noted that an order had been issued in PR761072.

The final order granted the United Workers' Union permission to conduct a protected action ballot among the specified employees of The Trustee for ePharmacy Unit Trust. This decision was made based on the Union's demonstrated efforts to negotiate and the satisfaction of the statutory requirements outlined in 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