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
Atlas Copco Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/821)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Atlas Copco Australia 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 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Atlas Copco Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 11 September 2017 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 N Grealy 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR596020.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) initiated proceedings against Atlas Copco Australia Pty Ltd, challenging the employer's decision to refuse a proposed ballot of employees regarding protected industrial action. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for this dispute, tasked with determining whether the employer's refusal was lawful and whether the union's application for a ballot should be upheld.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of sections of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was justified under the provisions that allow employers to refuse a ballot if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the proposed action would result in a detriment to the business. The court also had to consider the criteria for a lawful ballot, including whether the ballot notice complied with the legislative requirements.

The Commission reviewed the employer's evidence and the union's submissions, weighing the potential impact of the proposed action against the statutory obligations of both parties. It was determined that the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was not justified as the evidence did not substantiate the claimed detriment to the business. The Commission found that the union had sufficiently demonstrated the necessity for the ballot, and thus, the employer's refusal was unlawful. Consequently, the Commission ordered Atlas Copco Australia Pty Ltd to facilitate the ballot as requested by the union, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirements for such a process.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established