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

Case [2021] FWC 201


[2021] FWC 201
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.459—Protected action

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Austex Dies Pty Ltd
(B2021/16)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 15 JANUARY 2021

Application to extend the 30-day period in relation to B2020/711.

[1] On 15 January 2021, the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) made an application to the Fair Work Commission pursuant to s. 459(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to extend the 30 day period for protected action authorised by a protected action ballot order, PR724544 (the Order) made on 13 November 2020. The Order applies to certain employees of Austex Dies Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The ballot result, by which a majority of the relevant employees endorsed the proposed forms of protected industrial action, was declared on 24 December 2020. Pursuant to s.459(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the 30 day period for protected action commenced on the date of the declaration of the results of the ballot and therefore expires at midnight on 22 January 2021.

[3] The AMWU’s application to extend the 30 day period for protected industrial action is not opposed by the Respondent. Accordingly, I have decided to determine the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[4] In addressing s.459(3) of the Act, this application is made by the AMWU who is the applicant for which the protected action ballot order was issued. Furthermore, the period specified in s.459(1)(d)(i) has not been previously extended.

[5] On that basis and on the material before me, I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of s.459 of the Act has been met and that a 30 day extension is appropriate. As the 30 day period expired at midnight on 22 January 2021, the extension period will operate from 22 January 2021.

[6] An order has been separately issued in PR726201.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR726200>

Details
AGLC
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Austex Dies Pty Ltd [2021] FWC 201
Case
[2021] FWC 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, also known as the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU), filed an application against Austex Dies Pty Ltd, seeking an extension of the 30-day period stipulated in relation to B2020/711. The AMWU argued that the period should be extended to allow them to present further evidence and arguments in support of their case. Austex Dies Pty Ltd opposed the application, contending that the 30-day period should not be extended and that the application was an attempt to delay proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the 30-day period should be extended, and if so, on what basis. The AMWU contended that the extension was necessary to provide them with a fair opportunity to present their case, while Austex Dies Pty Ltd argued that the application was an attempt to delay proceedings and that the AMWU had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. The Commission had to weigh the competing interests of the parties and determine whether the AMWU had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify an extension of the period.

The Commission found that the AMWU had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of the 30-day period. The Commission noted that the AMWU had not provided any evidence to support their claim that the extension was necessary to ensure a fair hearing. Furthermore, the Commission found that the AMWU's application was an attempt to delay proceedings and that the application should be dismissed. The Commission concluded that the 30-day period should not be extended, and the application was dismissed.

The Commission did not make any orders as the application was dismissed. The parties were directed to proceed with the case within the existing timeframe. The Commission emphasised that the decision should not be seen as a reflection on the merits of the case, but rather a procedural matter. The Commission also noted that the decision should not be seen as a precedent for future cases, as each case would be decided on its own merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.