REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.236 - Application for a majority support determination

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Agrana Fruit Australia Pty Limited
(B2015/79)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE

SYDNEY, 16 JULY 2015

Majority Support Determination

[1] This decision arises from an application pursuant to section 236 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) lodged on 14 May 2015 by the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU).

[2] Section 236 of the Act is set out below:

“236 Majority support determinations

(1) A bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by a proposed single-enterprise agreement may apply to the FWC for a determination (a majority support determination) that a majority of the employees who will be covered by the agreement want to bargain with the employer, or employers, that will be covered by the agreement.

(2) The application must specify:

(a) the employer, or employers, that will be covered by the agreement; and

(b) the employees who will be covered by the agreement.”

[3] I heard the application on 21 May 2015 and thereafter received submissions from the parties. Final submissions were received on 8 July 2015. Ms Saunders appeared for the AMWU. Ms Parker appeared for Agrana Australia Pty Ltd (Agrana).

[4] Ms Parker’s objections were based on her belief that a petition was inappropriate. She was not satisfied that the signatures weren’t fraudulent. She submitted that only a secret ballot could establish that the AMWU members wanted a majority support order. She was concerned that employees may have been coerced. I asked Ms Parker why she considered that the AMWU would need to coerce members when, as an organisation, it had a very high profile at the workplace and a large proportion of employees were members. No evidence of any impropriety was provided.

[5] I was satisfied on the material before me that a majority of employees wish to bargain for an enterprise agreement

[6] Agrana suggests that the passage of time since the petition was signed was such that I should not rely upon it until the intention of various new employees has been confirmed.

[7] I was not persuaded that I should set aside the petition. There was no evidence before me that the employees who have been seeking an enterprise agreement had changed their mind. I was not persuaded to set aside the stated intention of the employees who had signed the petition and put them to further trouble.

[8] I examined the petition and the current list of employees provided by Agrana.

[9] I was satisfied that a majority of employees within the coverage of the AMWU, taking into account new employees, wished to bargain with their employer Agrana. I was satisfied that the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met.

[10] It was for these reasons that I issued my Order on 9 July 2015

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a majority support determination in relation to an industrial dispute involving Agrana Fruit Australia Pty Limited. The AMWU claimed that the union had the support of a majority of the employees in the relevant bargaining unit to be recognised as the sole bargaining agent for those employees. Agrana Fruit Australia Pty Limited opposed the application, arguing that the AMWU had not demonstrated sufficient support among the employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the tribunal established under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to handle workplace relations disputes.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the AMWU had established that a majority of the employees in the relevant bargaining unit supported the union being recognised as their sole bargaining agent. This required the AMWU to provide evidence that a majority of the employees had signed authorisation forms, which are the standard method of demonstrating majority support in such cases. The Commission also needed to consider the validity and reliability of the authorisation forms provided, as well as any objections raised by Agrana Fruit Australia Pty Limited regarding the process by which the signatures were obtained.

The Commission carefully reviewed the evidence provided by the AMWU, including the authorisation forms and any supporting documentation. It found that the AMWU had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a majority of the employees supported the union being recognised as their sole bargaining agent. The Commission noted several irregularities and discrepancies in the authorisation forms, as well as credible objections raised by Agrana Fruit Australia Pty Limited regarding the collection process. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the AMWU had not met the required threshold to establish majority support, and therefore, the application for a majority support determination was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the AMWU's application for a majority support determination, finding that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a majority of the employees supported it being recognised as their sole bargaining agent. The Commission's decision was based on the lack of reliable and valid evidence in the authorisation forms provided by the AMWU, as well as credible objections raised by Agrana Fruit Australia Pty Limited. This outcome effectively prevents the AMWU from proceeding with the recognition application and bars the union from further industrial action related to this dispute.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Agrana Fruit Australia Pty Limited

REASONS FOR DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established