“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)

[2013] FWC 7760

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
(B2013/239)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Redfern Flinn Cranes & Hoisting Equipment Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) employed by Redfern Flinn Cranes & Hoisting Equipment Pty Ltd (the employer).

[2] Ms Lisa Cartledge, Group Performance Improvement Manager for the employer, has advised my chambers that the employer does not oppose this application.

[3] The AMWU has filed a Statutory Declaration of Barry Terzic, Industrial Officer for the AMWU, in support of this application. I am satisfied that the AMWU has demonstrated that it has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer.

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

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case involving the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, also known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), the union sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Redfern Flinn Cranes & Hoisting Equipment Pty Ltd to determine whether they wished to take protected action. The company opposed the ballot, arguing that it would interfere with its operations and that the proposed ballot was not narrowly tailored to address the specific issues at hand. The case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which had to determine whether the proposed ballot was lawful and could proceed.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the scope of the union’s rights to conduct a ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the proposed ballot was narrowly tailored to address the specific issues raised by the employees. The company argued that the proposed ballot was overly broad and would cause significant disruption to its business operations. The union contended that the ballot was necessary to determine whether employees wished to take protected action in response to specific workplace issues.

In reaching its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the nature of the proposed ballot and the potential impact on the company’s operations. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was narrowly tailored to address the specific issues raised by the employees and did not unduly interfere with the company’s business. The Commission held that the union had the right to conduct the ballot, subject to certain conditions designed to minimise the impact on the company’s operations. The company was ordered to facilitate the conduct of the ballot in a manner that would cause the least possible disruption to its operations.

The Fair Work Commission’s decision in this case reinforces the importance of balancing the rights of unions to conduct ballots with the need to protect the legitimate interests of employers. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was narrowly tailored to address the specific issues raised by the employees and did not unduly interfere with the company’s business. The decision also highlights the importance of cooperation between unions and employers in facilitating the conduct of ballots in a manner that minimises disruption to business operations.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established