| [2022] FWC 3219 |
| 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
DMH Plant Services Pty Ltd
(B2022/1794)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | MELBOURNE, 6 DECEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of DMH Plant Services Pty Ltd
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 DMH Plant Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 5 December 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Philip Andrew Golby of the Applicant declared on 2 December 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 PR748644.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR748645>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v DMH Plant Services Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 3219
- Case
- [2022] FWC 3219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the AMWU had met the statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. This included verifying that the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and that the requisite notification period for the proposed industrial action had been observed, as mandated by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
After reviewing the evidence, Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the AMWU had indeed satisfied the conditions set forth in the Act. The union's declaration, along with other submissions, demonstrated their good faith efforts in bargaining with DMH Plant Services Pty Ltd. Furthermore, the statutory notification period had been adhered to, thus fulfilling the prerequisites for the ballot. Consequently, the application was approved, and an order was issued permitting the union to proceed with the ballot for protected industrial action.
The Fair Work Commission issued an order in PR748644, granting the AMWU permission to conduct a protected action ballot among its members employed by DMH Plant Services Pty Ltd. This decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance and the necessity for both parties to engage in genuine bargaining efforts before resorting to industrial action.
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.