| [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
<PR747234>
- AGLC
- “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
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2871
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.