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

[2013] FWC 9431

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
BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Limited
(B2013/1437)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 4 DECEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) employed by BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Limited.

[2] This application was filed by the AMWU on 28 November 2013. The AMWU has filed a statutory declaration of Mr Barry Terzic in support of this application. I am satisfied that the AMWU has demonstrated that it has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer.

[3] Mr Andrew Mauger, General Manager, of the employer advised my chambers by email that the company does not oppose the order.

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

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought proceedings against BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Limited, challenging the company's refusal to conduct a ballot of its employees regarding potential protected industrial action. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission, with the AMWU seeking an order for BCS to facilitate the ballot. The union argued that the proposed action was a genuine attempt by employees to address workplace issues, while BCS contended that the proposed action did not meet the legal criteria for a protected action ballot.

The legal issues before the Commission involved whether the proposed industrial action was genuinely related to the employees' conditions of employment and whether the union had properly notified BCS of the intention to ballot, as required by the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to determine if the union's claims were substantiated and whether the company's refusal to conduct the ballot was justified or an improper interference with the employees' right to organise and take protected action.

In its decision, the Commission found that the union had sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed industrial action was genuinely related to the employees' conditions of employment and that the union had complied with the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted that the employees had legitimate concerns regarding their working conditions, and the proposed action was a reasonable response to these issues. Consequently, the Commission ordered BCS Infrastructure Support Pty Limited to facilitate the ballot as requested by the union. The company's refusal to conduct the ballot was deemed an improper interference with the employees' rights, and the Commission mandated that BCS comply with the order without further delay.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established