“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Americold Logistics Limited

[2023] FWC 1274

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

Americold Logistics Limited

(B2023/506)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 30 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Americold Logistics Limited

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

On 30 May 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object 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 declaration of Mr Andrew Bonello of the Applicant 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 PR762637.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently addressed an application made by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, requesting an order for a protected action ballot concerning certain employees of Americold Logistics Limited. The union sought to hold the ballot to explore potential industrial action in the absence of an agreement with the employer. The application was filed without objection from Americold, allowing the Deputy President to proceed with the matter based on the submitted documentation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had fulfilled the necessary prerequisites to conduct a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had genuinely engaged in bargaining with the employer, if there was a notification period in place, and if the statutory requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been satisfied. The union submitted a declaration by Mr. Andrew Bonello, outlining the steps taken during the bargaining process and affirming the union's genuine attempts to reach an agreement with Americold.

After reviewing the submitted documentation, the Deputy President concluded that the union had indeed met the necessary criteria for conducting a protected action ballot. The evidence demonstrated that the union had genuinely engaged in bargaining and that there was a notification period in place. Furthermore, the union had satisfied the requirements set out in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the Deputy President decided to issue an order allowing the union to proceed with the ballot. This decision underscores the importance of genuine bargaining efforts and adherence to statutory requirements in facilitating industrial action under Australian employment law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established