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

[2018] FWC 4497

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)

BlueScope Steel Limited

(B2018/662)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 31 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel Limited.

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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of BlueScope Steel Limited (Respondent).

On 31 July 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr G Bubb 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR609577.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, acting on behalf of its members employed by BlueScope Steel Limited, sought a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot for protected industrial action met the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the ballot notice provided adequate information to the employer and whether it complied with the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot. The Commission found that the notice provided by the union did not sufficiently detail the proposed action or the workplace affected, and therefore did not meet the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. As a result, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was not protected action under the Act. The Commission's decision hinged on the statutory requirement that a ballot notice for protected industrial action must specify the proposed action, the employees involved, and the workplace or workplaces affected. In this case, the notice did not provide sufficient details regarding the proposed action and the specific workplace or workplaces it would impact. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the notice did not comply with the legislative requirements and that the proposed ballot was not protected action. The Commission's decision was based on a meticulous analysis of the statutory provisions and the particulars of the ballot notice. The final orders of the Commission were that the proposed ballot was not protected action and that the Union's application for a declaration to the contrary was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established