“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Centennial Myuna Pty Limited

[2022] FWC 1298

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

Centennial Myuna Pty Limited

(B2022/467)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 25 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Centennial Myuna Pty Limited

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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Centennial Myuna Pty Limited (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented to nor opposed 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 statutory declaration of Bradley Pidgeon of the Applicant declared on 19 May 2022, 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 PR741982.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Centennial Myuna Pty Limited. The application was made due to the union's efforts to reach an agreement with the respondent company, which neither consented to nor opposed the application. The case was handled by Vice President Catanzariti of the Fair Work Commission, who decided to determine the matter based on the submitted documents without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the respondent and if the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met. This section outlines the conditions under which a union may call for a protected action ballot. The union's statutory declaration by Bradley Pidgeon, dated 19 May 2022, was a critical piece of evidence in determining the union's efforts to negotiate with the respondent. The court had to assess the union's efforts and the timing of the proposed agreement to decide if the union could proceed with the ballot.

After reviewing the submitted documents, including the union's statutory declaration, Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the respondent and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. The court also noted that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted. An order was separately issued in PR741982.

This decision underscores the Fair Work Commission's role in ensuring that unions follow the legal process when seeking to organise protected action ballots, and it highlights the importance of demonstrating genuine negotiation efforts to meet the statutory requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established