| [2021] FWC 1231 |
| 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
CQMS Castings Pty Ltd T/A CQMS Razer
(B2021/136)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN | SYDNEY, 5 MARCH 2021 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CQMS Castings Pty Ltd T/A CQMS Razer.
[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CQMS Castings Pty Ltd T/A CQMS Razer (Respondent).
[2] On 5 March 2021, the Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.
[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Edward John Couch of the AMWU made on 4 March 2021, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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.
[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR727568.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR727567>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v CQMS Castings Pty Ltd T/A CQMS Razer [2021] FWC 1231
- Case
- [2021] FWC 1231
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the union's request for a ballot was procedurally valid and if the company had any legitimate grounds to refuse the ballot. The AMWU argued that the company's refusal to allow the ballot was an interference with the employees' rights under the Act. Conversely, CQMS Castings contended that the ballot was not properly notified and that it posed operational risks to the company. The court needed to resolve whether the union's procedural compliance was sufficient and whether the company's operational concerns could override the employees' statutory rights.
In its judgment, the court held that the union's request for a ballot was procedurally sound and that the company had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify its refusal. The court found that the employees' rights to organise and participate in protected actions were paramount, and the company's operational concerns did not constitute a valid reason to deny the ballot. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, compelling the company to allow the ballot to proceed. The decision underscored the importance of protecting employees' rights to organise and engage in collective action under the Fair Work Act.
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.