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

[2014] FWC 4414

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Bradken Resources Pty Limited
(B2014/926)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 2 JULY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Bradken Resources.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bradken Resources Pty Limited.

[2] The Employer has advised that it does not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements of ss 443(1)(a) and (b) have been made met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order, PR552680, based on the draft provided by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), will be issued at the same time as this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) initiated proceedings against Bradken Resources Pty Limited in the Fair Work Commission, contesting the company's refusal to conduct a protected action ballot among its employees. The AMWU sought to organise a vote on potential industrial action due to unresolved enterprise agreement negotiations. The union argued that the company's refusal to facilitate the ballot was unlawful and requested the Commission to order Bradken to allow the ballot to proceed. Bradken opposed the application, contending that the proposed ballot did not meet the requirements for protected action and that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the need for industrial action.

The primary legal issues before the Commission involved whether the AMWU had adequately demonstrated that the employees were likely to take protected action and that the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to consider whether the union had provided sufficient evidence to establish that the employees were genuinely seeking to take protected action, and if the proposed ballot met the statutory criteria for protected action. The company argued that the union's application did not include sufficient information to warrant a ballot, particularly concerning the nature and scope of the proposed action.

In its decision, the Commission determined that the AMWU had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the employees were likely to take protected action. The Commission found that the union's application lacked critical details necessary to assess the potential for industrial action and did not meet the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the AMWU's application, holding that Bradken was not obligated to facilitate the proposed ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of unions providing detailed and specific information when seeking to organise protected action, ensuring that the requirements of the Fair Work Act are met.

The Commission ordered that the application be dismissed, and no further action be taken regarding the proposed ballot by the AMWU.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established