“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v ALS Industrial Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2176

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)
v

ALS Industrial Pty Ltd

(B2022/1220)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ALS Industrial Pty Ltd

This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ALS Industrial Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented nor objected to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Alexander North of the Applicant declared on 11 August 2022, 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.

An Order has been separately issued in PR744856.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of ALS Industrial Pty Ltd. ALS Industrial Pty Ltd did not consent to or object to the application. The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. The AMWU submitted a statutory declaration from Alexander North, which set out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with ALS Industrial Pty Ltd and that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the company. The Vice President was satisfied that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The union argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the company and had taken all necessary steps to do so. The company did not object to the application, and the Vice President was satisfied that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act.

The Vice President found that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The court was satisfied with the evidence provided by the union and found that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the company. The court issued an Order separately in PR744856. The Vice President did not hold a hearing as the company did not object to the application.

This decision highlights the importance of following the correct procedures when seeking a protected action ballot order under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court was satisfied with the evidence provided by the union and found that it had met the requirements of the Act. The decision also emphasises the importance of the company's role in the bargaining process and the need for both parties to work together to reach an agreement. The Fair Work Commission's decision in this case provides guidance on the requirements for a protected action ballot order and the steps that unions must take to meet those requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established