| [2016] FWC 6509 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Melbourne
(B2016/979)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 9 SEPTEMBER 2016 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Melbourne.
[1] This is an application by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Melbourne (the Respondent).
[2] On 9 September 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.
[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr D Vroland of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, 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 PR585275.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR585278>
- AGLC
- "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Melbourne [2016] FWC 6509
- Case
- [2016] FWC 6509
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union had complied with the necessary procedural requirements to conduct a protected action ballot and whether the ballot itself was lawful. The company argued that the union had not provided sufficient information to the employees, thus rendering the ballot invalid. The union, on the other hand, contended that it had fulfilled all necessary obligations and that the ballot was a legitimate means to ascertain employee sentiment towards potential industrial action.
The Fair Work Commission found that the union had indeed complied with all procedural requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees were provided with comprehensive and accurate information to make informed decisions about participating in the ballot. After reviewing the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, confirming the validity of the ballot. The company's challenge to the union's right to conduct the ballot was dismissed.
The Commission ordered that the union's proposed protected action ballot could proceed as planned, subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. The decision underscored the importance of clear communication and procedural adherence in the conduct of protected action ballots, ensuring that employees have the necessary information to make informed decisions about potential industrial action.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.