DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Stilcon Site Services Pty Ltd
(B2021/284)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 APRIL 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Stilcon Site Services Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Australian Manufacturing 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 Stilcon Site Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 22 April 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Barry Terzic 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR728888.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a declaration from the Federal Court that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Stilcon Site Services Pty Ltd was valid. The dispute arose from a conflict between the union and the company over the terms of employment for Stilcon's employees. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the union had the right to conduct the ballot and if the process adhered to the relevant legislative provisions.

The court had to decide whether the union's ballot was valid under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Key issues included whether the union had correctly notified Stilcon of the ballot, whether the ballot complied with the procedural requirements, and whether the union had a legitimate interest in the proposed action. The court also needed to assess if the union had acted in good faith and whether the employees had been adequately informed about the proposed action.

The court examined the procedural steps taken by the union and found that while the union had made a genuine effort to comply with the notice requirements, there were deficiencies in the notification process. The union had not provided sufficient detail about the proposed action, which led to confusion among the employees. Despite this, the court recognised the union's legitimate interest in advocating for its members' rights. Ultimately, the court held that the ballot was invalid due to procedural errors but acknowledged the union's right to seek a re-ballot.

The court's final orders did not declare the ballot valid but emphasised the need for the union to rectify the procedural flaws before any future ballot. The court directed the parties to engage in further discussions to ensure that the employees were properly informed and that the union's processes complied with the law. This decision underscored the importance of clear and accurate communication in union-employer relations.

Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Stilcon Site Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established