DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Cranbourne Transit Pty Ltd T/A Cranbourne Transit
(B2019/586)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 JULY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cranbourne Transit Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by "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 Cranbourne Transit Pty Ltd T/A Cranbourne Transit (Respondent).

[2] On 26 July 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr J Gardner 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR710744.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) initiated legal proceedings against Cranbourne Transit Pty Ltd T/A Cranbourne Transit in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought an order to conduct a protected action ballot of the employees of the respondent company, seeking to ascertain whether the employees were in favour of protected action. The dispute arose from a disagreement over the terms and conditions of employment, including issues related to wages, working hours, and other employment-related matters.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had satisfied the statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot and whether such a ballot was necessary to resolve the employment dispute. The Commission had to determine if the union had provided sufficient evidence that there was a genuine dispute over work health and safety, and whether the proposed protected action was reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, the Commission considered whether the ballot was necessary to resolve the dispute and if the proposed industrial action was likely to be effective.

In examining the evidence, the Commission noted that the union had not demonstrated that there was a genuine dispute over work health and safety, as required by the relevant legislation. The Commission found that the union had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the necessity of the proposed protected action. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the proposed industrial action was not likely to be effective in resolving the employment dispute. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application for an order to conduct a protected action ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the application by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union for an order to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Cranbourne Transit Pty Ltd be dismissed. The Commission also noted that the union was to bear the costs of the application.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Cranbourne Transit Pty Ltd T/A Cranbourne Transit

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established