United Workers' Union v The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by Blue Care

[2022] FWC 691

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by Blue Care

(B2022/231)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

BRISBANE, 29 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of the Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by Blue Care

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 Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by Blue Care (Respondent).

On 28 March 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 Kylie Muscat of the Applicant declared on 24 March 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 PR739780.

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 to conduct a protected action ballot for certain employees of the Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by Blue Care. The Union argued that it had been genuinely attempting to negotiate with the Trust and had met the notification period requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Trust did not oppose the application, allowing the Commission to proceed with the matter based on the submitted documents.

The legal issues that arose involved determining whether the Union had fulfilled the necessary conditions to hold a protected action ballot. This required examining the Union's efforts in bargaining with the Trust and ensuring that the notification period stipulated in the Fair Work Act had been met. The Commission needed to verify the Union's claims that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement and had completed the requisite notification period.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the Union had indeed met the requirements of the Act. Based on the statutory declaration provided by Kylie Muscat of the Union, the Commission found that the Union had been genuinely trying to negotiate with the Trust. Furthermore, the notification period for the proposed agreement had been adhered to. The Commission determined that all statutory conditions for the ballot were satisfied, leading to the issuance of the protected action ballot order.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order allowing the United Workers' Union to proceed with the protected action ballot for the specified employees of the Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by Blue Care. This decision was made on the basis that the Union had demonstrated its genuine efforts in bargaining and compliance with the notification period as required by the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established