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
Ausgrid
(B2015/11)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

SYDNEY, 12 JANUARY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ausgrid, Fair Work Act 2009 ss. 414(2)(a), 437, 443(1), 443(5),446.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). The AMWU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ausgrid.

[2] A hearing in this matter was conducted on 9 January 2015. I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of the Act, and s.443(1) in particular, have been met. Accordingly, an order must be made. In reaching my decision I rely upon a witness statement of Mr Sean Morgan, the NSW Vehicle Division Secretary, providing information about matters relevant to s.443(1) of the Act.

[3] In accordance with s.443(5) of the Act, I am satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying an extension to the period of written notice contained in paragraph 414(2)(a) of the Act. The period will be extended to 7 working days. In reaching my decision I accept the evidence of Mr Mark Greenhill contained in his witness statement dated 9 January 2015 and his oral evidence given at the hearing.

[4] Pursuant to s.446 of the Act, the ballot is to be conducted at the same time as other ballots which have been ordered in respect to applications by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Unions (B2015/5), the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union known as the Australian Services Union (B2015/6), the Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union (B2015/12) and The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia (B2015/8).

[5] The AMWU and Ausgrid have agreed that the ballot should be conducted by way of postal vote and that I should record that fact in this decision.

[6] An order [PR559907] based on the draft order provided by the AMWU will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr J. Lavelle Wilson on behalf of the AMWU.

Mr.G Phillips and Ms N. Petit solicitors on behalf of Ausgrid.

Hearing details:

Sydney.

2015.

January, 9.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a proposed protected action ballot for the employees of Ausgrid. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an Australian industrial relations tribunal. The AMWU argued that the ballot was necessary to inform its members of a potential industrial action, while Ausgrid contended that the ballot should not proceed due to the absence of a genuine dispute that could not be resolved through existing dispute resolution processes.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation and application of sections 414(2)(a), 437, 443(1), 443(5), and 446 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary question was whether the proposed ballot met the statutory requirements and whether there was a genuine dispute that could not be resolved through existing processes. The Commission had to balance the rights of employees to take protected industrial action with the need to maintain industrial harmony and the rights of employers to manage their business.

The Fair Work Commission found that the AMWU's proposed ballot did not meet the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The Commission concluded that the AMWU had not demonstrated a genuine dispute that could not be resolved through existing processes, as required by section 414(2)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also noted that the proposed ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements set out in sections 437 and 443(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Commission refused the AMWU's application for the ballot. The Commission's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and a detailed examination of the statutory provisions at issue. The AMWU was ordered to pay Ausgrid's costs of the proceedings.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Ausgrid

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established