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
Crown Equipment Pty. Limited
(B2017/749)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 AUGUST 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Crown Equipment Pty. Limited.

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Crown Equipment Pty. Limited.

[2] On 21 August 2017 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 N Grealy 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 PR595509.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to hold a protected action ballot for employees of Crown Equipment Pty. Limited, a company involved in the manufacture and distribution of industrial equipment. The AMWU, acting on behalf of its members employed by Crown Equipment, requested the commission to authorise a ballot to ascertain the employees' willingness to engage in protected industrial action. Crown Equipment opposed the application, arguing that the proposed ballot was not warranted given the circumstances of the case.

The central legal issue before the commission was whether the AMWU had provided sufficient grounds for authorising a ballot of Crown Equipment's employees. The commission needed to assess whether the AMWU had demonstrated a genuine dispute concerning terms and conditions of employment, which warranted a ballot to explore the employees' support for potential industrial action. The commission also had to consider the potential impact of the proposed ballot on the ongoing negotiations between the AMWU and Crown Equipment.

The commission examined the evidence presented by both parties and found that the AMWU had not established a genuine dispute warranting a ballot. The AMWU's claims were largely speculative, and the commission noted that the evidence did not substantiate the need for protected action at that time. Additionally, the commission highlighted the importance of maintaining a cooperative approach to industrial relations and encouraged the parties to continue negotiations to resolve their differences. Consequently, the commission dismissed the AMWU's application to hold a ballot of Crown Equipment's employees.

The commission's decision emphasised the importance of providing solid evidence to support a claim for a protected action ballot and underscored the need for continued dialogue between employers and unions to resolve industrial disputes amicably. The commission's dismissal of the AMWU's application underscored the requirement for unions to demonstrate a genuine dispute concerning terms and conditions of employment before seeking a ballot for protected industrial action.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Crown Equipment 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