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

[2018] FWC 4627

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)

Bradken Resources Pty Limited

(B2018/686)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 7 AUGUST 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bradken Resources Pty 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 Bradken Resources Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 7 August 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 T Jackson 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 PR609750.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and Bradken Resources Pty Limited was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The AMWU sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Bradken Resources. The ballot was intended to determine whether employees would support industrial action, including a potential strike, in pursuit of improved working conditions and pay. Bradken Resources contested the ballot, arguing that the union's proposed methods were unlawful and did not meet the necessary standards for a protected action ballot.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the union's proposed methods for conducting the ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the ballot notices were appropriately designed and distributed, and whether the ballot process was transparent and fair. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the union's actions aligned with the procedural requirements necessary to protect the rights of both the union and the employer.

The Fair Work Commission examined the union's ballot notices and the proposed process for conducting the ballot. The court found that the notices did not clearly outline the proposed action or the consequences for employees who did not vote. Furthermore, the court determined that the process lacked the necessary transparency and fairness, as it did not provide adequate information to employees regarding the potential impact of the proposed industrial action. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the union's proposed ballot was not compliant with the statutory requirements, and it was not authorised. The court emphasised the importance of clear communication and procedural integrity in such processes. As a result, the union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established