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
Donaldson Australasia Pty Ltd
(B2017/985)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 18 OCTOBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Donaldson Australasia Pty Ltd.

[1] 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Donaldson Australasia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 18 October 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 T Jackson 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 PR596918.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), and Donaldson Australasia Pty Ltd. The AMWU sought authorisation for a protected action ballot of employees of Donaldson Australasia Pty Ltd. The ballot was intended to be held to allow the employees to vote on whether to take industrial action in response to the employer's proposed changes to their working conditions. The employer opposed the ballot, arguing that the proposed changes did not breach the enterprise agreement and that the ballot was unnecessary.

The legal issues before the Commission were whether the proposed changes breached the enterprise agreement and, if so, whether the proposed industrial action was protected action. The AMWU argued that the proposed changes constituted a breach of the enterprise agreement and that the proposed industrial action was lawful. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the proposed changes did not breach the agreement and that the proposed industrial action was unprotected.

The Commission held that the proposed changes did not breach the enterprise agreement. The Commission found that the changes were consistent with the agreement and did not alter the employees' terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also held that the proposed industrial action was unprotected because the AMWU had not complied with the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot. The Commission noted that the AMWU had not provided sufficient information to the employees about the proposed changes and the reasons for the proposed industrial action. As a result, the Commission refused to authorise the proposed ballot.

The Commission's decision highlights the importance of providing employees with sufficient information about proposed changes to their working conditions and the reasons for any proposed industrial action. Employers should ensure that they comply with the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot to avoid the risk of an unprotected industrial action. The AMWU should also ensure that it provides employees with sufficient information about the proposed changes and the reasons for the proposed industrial action to avoid the risk of an unprotected industrial action.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Donaldson Australasia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established