“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Bureau Veritas, Whyalla SA T/A Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2871

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

Bureau Veritas, Whyalla SA T/A Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd

(B2022/1610)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 27 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Bureau Veritas, Whyalla SA T/A Bureau Veritas Minerals 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Bureau Veritas, Whyalla SA T/A Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 26 October 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object 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 declaration of Mr Steven McMillan 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 PR747235.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) sought a protected action ballot order against Bureau Veritas, Whyalla SA T/A Bureau Veritas Minerals Pty Ltd. This was under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The AMWU was seeking to hold a ballot for potential protected actions by certain employees. The case was heard by Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission.

The court had to decide whether the AMWU had met the legal requirements to hold a protected action ballot. This involved considering the union's efforts to negotiate with Bureau Veritas and whether the statutory notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The union's declaration and supporting documents were central to this assessment.

Deputy President Clancy determined the matter based on the documentation submitted, particularly the union's declaration outlining its negotiation efforts and adherence to the Act. The court found that the union had met the notification period and other statutory requirements. As a result, the court granted the AMWU's application for a protected action ballot order.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order allowing the AMWU to proceed with a ballot for protected actions by the employees. This order was issued separately in PR747235. The court's decision was based on the evidence provided and the legal criteria set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established