United Workers' Union v Vinpac International Pty Limited T/A Prowine

[2022] FWC 2318

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Vinpac International Pty Limited T/A Prowine

(B2022/1305)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Vinpac International Pty Limited T/A Prowine.

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 Vinpac International Pty Limited T/A Prowine (the Respondent).

On 31 August 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 Anne Purdy 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 PR745376.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking a protected action ballot order for certain employees of Vinpac International Pty Limited, trading as Prowine. The Fair Work Commission, led by Deputy President Clancy, was tasked with resolving this matter. The application was filed on 31 August 2022, and the Commission was informed that the respondent, Vinpac International Pty Limited, did not object to the application. Consequently, the matter was decided based on the submitted documents, without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the United Workers' Union had fulfilled the necessary requirements to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was a notification time for the proposed agreement and if the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer, as stipulated in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union submitted a declaration by Ms Anne Purdy, affirming that they had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer and that there was a notification time for the proposed agreement.

The Fair Work Commission, upon reviewing the submitted documents, was satisfied that the union had met the requirements for holding a protected action ballot. The Commission noted that the union had provided a declaration from Ms Anne Purdy, which outlined the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer and their ongoing genuine attempts to reach an agreement. Furthermore, the court found that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met, and the requirements in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 were satisfied. Consequently, the court granted the application for a protected action ballot order.

As a result of the court's decision, an order was issued separately in PR745376, allowing the United Workers' Union to proceed with the protected action ballot for the employees of Vinpac International Pty Limited, trading as Prowine. The decision of the Fair Work Commission, led by Deputy President Clancy, was based on the provided evidence and the absence of objection from the respondent, Vinpac International Pty Limited. The court's ruling ensures that the union can move forward with the proposed ballot, as it has met the necessary requirements under 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