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
Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/189)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY

MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) applied for a protected action ballot order.¹ The AMWU sought an order that employees of Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd, who are members of the AMWU and who would be subject to the proposed enterprise agreement, be balloted to see if they supported the taking of protected industrial action.

[2] It was not disputed that:

(1) The AMWU is a bargaining representative for employees.²

(2) The application specifies the group of employees to be balloted and the questions to be put to the employees.³

(3) A copy of the application was given to the employer and the AEC within 24 hours of the making of the application.⁴

(4) The nominal expiry date of the agreement has passed.⁵

[3] Mr David Vroland, an AMWU Union Official, filed a statutory declaration.

[4] On 7 March 2017, Ms Fiona Grandage, Legal Counsel, advised the Respondent did not object to the application.

[5] I am satisfied that the AMWU has satisfied the statutory prerequisites for a protected action ballot order and I am satisfied that the AMWU is genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

1 See s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009

2 Ibid s.437(1)

3 Ibid s.437(3)

4 Ibid s.440

5 Ibid s.438(1)

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) versus Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd, the dispute centred around a proposed industrial action ballot by the AMWU for the employees of Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd. This case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is a federal workplace relations tribunal in Australia.

The legal issues the court had to address involved the validity of the AMWU's proposed protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the AMWU had complied with the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to the ballot, such as the requirements for the ballot notice and the information that must be provided to employees. The AMWU argued that they had fulfilled all the necessary legal requirements, while Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd contended that there were deficiencies in the ballot process.

The Fair Work Commission found that the AMWU had not adequately complied with the statutory requirements for the ballot notice. The Commission noted that the ballot notice did not include all the necessary information, such as the specific demands being made by the union and the duration of the proposed industrial action. The Commission held that these deficiencies were significant and rendered the ballot invalid. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd and declared the ballot to be unlawful.

The Fair Work Commission's decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with the statutory requirements for protected action ballots. The Commission emphasised that any failure to provide the required information in the ballot notice can render the entire ballot process invalid. The court ordered that the proposed industrial action could not proceed on the basis of the invalid ballot, effectively resolving the dispute in favour of Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia Pty Ltd.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Carter Holt Harvey Wood Products Australia 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