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

[2023] FWC 625

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

BDD Milk Pty Ltd

(B2023/231)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 16 MARCH 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BDD Milk Pty Ltd

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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of BDD Milk Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented nor objected 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 statutory declaration of Jacqueline Carovska of the Applicant declared on 8 March 2023, 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 PR760312.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has dealt with an application by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), also known as the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, seeking an order for a protected action ballot. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 against BDD Milk Pty Ltd. The Respondent did not consent to nor object to the application. The Vice President, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter on the basis of the available documents without holding a hearing. The application was based on the union's assertion that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer and had taken the necessary steps in bargaining.

The legal issues before the Court involved whether the union had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. This included verifying that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement and ensuring that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer. The union's statutory declaration, along with other documents, provided the basis for the Court's assessment of these requirements. The Vice President was satisfied that the union had met the criteria under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act.

The Vice President concluded that the union had fulfilled the necessary conditions for the protected action ballot. Given the evidence provided, the union's efforts to reach an agreement with the employer were deemed genuine, and the notification period had been appropriately observed. Consequently, the application was successful, and an order was issued accordingly. This decision ensures that the union can proceed with the ballot as a means of protecting its members' rights and interests in the bargaining process.

An Order was issued separately in PR760312, reflecting the Vice President's decision to grant the union's application for a protected action ballot. This order allows the union to proceed with the ballot, thereby facilitating the process of reaching a fair agreement between the union and the employer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established