United Workers' Union v ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 1487

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/561)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 14 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ZG Operations Australia 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 ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 10 June 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 Hanna Bushell 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 PR742572.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made an application for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application concerned certain employees of ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent). The Applicant sought to conduct a ballot to determine if employees would support protected action, such as a strike or lockout, due to ongoing disputes over the terms and conditions of employment. The Respondent did not object to the application, allowing the Deputy President to proceed with the determination on the basis of the submitted documents.

The legal issues before the court involved verifying whether the notification period for the proposed agreement had been properly met and if the statutory requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were satisfied. This included examining the bargaining efforts and the genuineness of the attempts to reach an agreement between the parties. The Applicant provided a declaration by Ms Hanna Bushell, affirming that the union had been genuinely attempting to negotiate with the Respondent.

After reviewing the material presented, Deputy President Clancy concluded that the notification time for the proposed agreement had indeed been met, and that the requirements of section 443(1) were fulfilled. Given that the Respondent did not contest the application and the evidence presented by the Applicant, the court found sufficient grounds to grant the order for a protected action ballot. Consequently, an order was issued in PR742572, permitting the ballot to proceed as requested.

This decision highlights the procedural framework under which the Fair Work Commission evaluates applications for protected action ballots, ensuring that all statutory obligations and notification periods are met. The Deputy President's decision underscores the importance of genuine bargaining efforts and the proper notification process in facilitating industrial action under 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