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
Brockman Engineering Pty Ltd
(B2017/872)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 SEPTEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Brockman Engineering Pty Ltd.

[1] 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 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Brockman Engineering Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 22 September 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms K Johnston 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR596325.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to conduct a ballot of its members employed by Brockman Engineering Pty Ltd, with the aim of taking industrial action. The dispute centred on the validity of the ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over such matters under the Fair Work Act.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot notice complied with the statutory requirements under the Act. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the ballot notice was provided to the employer within the required timeframe and if it contained the necessary information, including the proposed action, the date of the ballot, and the intended outcome of the ballot. The AMWU argued that the ballot notice was valid, while Brockman Engineering Pty Ltd contended that the ballot notice was defective.

The Commission held that the ballot notice did not comply with the statutory requirements. The notice was not provided within the required timeframe, and it did not include all the necessary information, including the intended outcome of the ballot. The Commission found that the notice was not sufficiently clear and specific to enable the employer to understand the proposed action and its potential impact. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the ballot was invalid, and the AMWU was not authorised to take industrial action based on that ballot.

The Commission's decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with the statutory requirements for conducting a ballot under the Fair Work Act. Employers and unions must ensure that all procedural requirements are met to avoid invalidity of the ballot and potential legal consequences.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established