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

[2021] FWC 6420

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
Altrad Services Pty Ltd
(B2021/1119)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 23 NOVEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Altrad Services Pty Ltd

[1] 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 Altrad Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 19 November 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Simon Rushworth of the Applicant declared on 18 November 2021, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR736069.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) versus Altrad Services Pty Ltd was heard before the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose when Altrad Services Pty Ltd proposed to take certain industrial action involving employees, which the union sought to prevent on the basis that it constituted protected action. The AMWU, as the representative of the employees, argued that the proposed action was protected under the Fair Work Act 2009, and therefore, it could not be lawfully prevented or interfered with by the employer. Altrad Services Pty Ltd contended that the proposed action was not genuinely for the purpose of a protected action and thus, not covered by the protections of the Act.

The legal issues before the Commission centred on whether the proposed industrial action was genuinely for a protected purpose and, if so, whether the employer's actions in response to that proposed action were lawful. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the employer's interference with the employees' right to vote in a ballot for protected action was justified under the Act. The Commission also had to consider the employer's right to take reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of the proposed industrial action on its business.

The Commission found that the proposed industrial action was indeed genuinely for a protected purpose, as it related to the employees' wages and conditions. The employer's actions to prevent the employees from voting in the ballot were found to be an unlawful interference with the employees' rights. The Commission concluded that the employer had not provided any evidence to justify the interference and that the employer's actions constituted an unfair labour practice. The Commission ordered that Altrad Services Pty Ltd must cease its interference with the employees' right to vote in the ballot and that the employer must facilitate the conduct of the ballot.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission found in favour of the AMWU and against Altrad Services Pty Ltd. The employer was directed to cease its interference with the employees' right to vote in the ballot and to facilitate the conduct of the ballot. The Commission's decision reinforces the importance of respecting employees' rights to engage in protected industrial action and the need for employers to act lawfully in responding to such action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established