Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) v O-I Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd

In the matter of Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) v O-I Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission found itself adjudicating on an application for an interlocutory injunction brought by the union against the employer, O-I Operations. The union alleged that the employer had contravened the O-I Melbourne – Maintenance Enterprise Agreement 2016 by deploying management or salaried staff to perform maintenance tasks, actions which the union claimed had deprived them of the full impact of their protected industrial action. This action was taken to prevent the employer from continuing to use non-union labour to perform maintenance work at their Spotswood factory, which had been impacted by recent bans on maintenance work at the "3 tank" section of the factory.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around whether the union had established a prima facie case that warranted the grant of injunctive relief. The court had to consider whether the union had shown that the employer's actions were unlawful and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The union argued that the employer's actions were an attempt to circumvent the effects of their industrial action, which was protected under the Fair Work Act 2009. They contended that the employer's use of salaried staff to perform maintenance work had the effect of undermining the Maintenance Employees' ability to engage in their protected action effectively. The employer, on the other hand, suggested that their actions were a legitimate response to the industrial action and were necessary to keep the factory operational.

The court found that the union had presented a strong prima facie case that the employer's actions were unlawful and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The union's claim that the employer's deployment of salaried staff was an attempt to undermine the impact of their industrial action was deemed credible. The court was satisfied that the union's allegations were sufficiently strong to warrant the granting of injunctive relief. Additionally, the court considered the potential harm to the union and their members if the injunction was not granted, as well as the impact on the employer's operations if the injunction was granted. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the union, as the potential harm to them outweighed any inconvenience to the employer.

In light of the findings, the court granted the union's application for an interlocutory injunction. The order restrained the employer from requiring or permitting any of its full-time, salaried employees to perform any work usually performed by employees to whom the enterprise agreement applied at the Spotswood plant. The injunction was set to take effect at a later date, allowing the employer an opportunity to apply to the Fair Work Commission for orders to suspend or terminate the protected industrial action. The court's decision was based on the strength of the union's prima facie case and the balance of convenience, which favoured the granting of injunctive relief.