United Workers' Union v Vinidex Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 2344

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Vinidex Pty Ltd

(B2022/1319)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Vinidex Pty Ltd.

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 Vinidex Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 5 September 2022, 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 Isabelle Mildenhall 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 PR745473.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application from the United Workers’ Union for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Vinidex Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union sought to conduct a ballot to potentially take protected action in a bid to reach a new agreement with Vinidex. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the Union had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot, specifically under section 443(1) of the Act, and if the notice period for the proposed agreement was correctly observed.

In considering the application, Deputy President Clancy relied on the declaration of Ms Isabelle Mildenhall from the Union, which detailed the Union’s efforts in bargaining with Vinidex and its genuine attempts to reach an agreement. The Deputy President noted that Vinidex did not object to the application, facilitating a determination based on the papers submitted without the need for a hearing. The Deputy President concluded that the Union had fulfilled the statutory obligations, including the notification period for the proposed agreement, and thus, the requirements for a protected action ballot were satisfied.

Consequently, the Commission issued an order permitting the Union to proceed with the ballot. This decision was made on the basis of the information and declarations provided, confirming that the Union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with Vinidex and that the statutory requirements were met. The formal order for the ballot was issued separately as PR745473.

United Workers' Union v Vinidex Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established