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 Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited
(B2016/129)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 21 June 2016.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AMWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statutory declaration declared by David Vroland, an Official of the AMWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited. The union's application was opposed by the employer, leading to a dispute over the procedural fairness and legality of the ballot. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with determining whether the union's proposed ballot met the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. Key issues included whether the ballot notice complied with the relevant provisions and whether the union had provided the employer with adequate information to enable the employer to make an informed response. The court also considered whether the employer had a legitimate interest in objecting to the ballot.

The court held that the union's ballot notice did not comply with the statutory requirements, as it did not provide the employer with sufficient information to enable an informed response. The union had failed to include details of the proposed industrial action, the proposed timing of the ballot, and the specific employee groups to be balloted. The court found that these omissions rendered the ballot notice ineffective. Additionally, the employer's interest in objecting to the ballot was deemed legitimate due to the potential impact on its operations and the need for timely and accurate information to address the union's concerns.

The court dismissed the union's application for a protected action ballot, finding it to be invalid. The decision emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for unions to provide employers with detailed information to enable informed decision-making in relation to proposed industrial action. The court's ruling underscores the necessity for compliance with statutory requirements when conducting protected action ballots.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established