“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v ECL Services (Aust) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 8486

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
ECL Services (Aust) Pty Ltd
(B2014/1119)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 27 NOVEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of ECL Services (Aust) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of ECL Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 4 September 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AMWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a Statutory Declaration of Barry Terzic, an Official of the AMWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought a claim against ECL Services (Aust) Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission (FWC), asserting that the company had failed to provide essential information to the union in relation to a proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The union sought an order compelling ECL to furnish the necessary information, which was crucial for the ballot process under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute centred on the adequacy and timeliness of the information provided by ECL and whether it complied with the legal requirements for such disclosures.

The primary legal issues before the FWC were whether ECL had fulfilled its statutory obligations by providing sufficient information for the ballot and whether the union had adequately demonstrated the necessity of additional information to conduct the ballot properly. The union argued that the information provided was inadequate and incomplete, thereby hindering its ability to conduct a lawful ballot. ECL contended that it had provided all required information and that any further information sought was beyond the scope of what was legally necessary.

The FWC found that ECL had not provided the union with all the necessary information as required by the Fair Work Act. The Commission considered the statutory framework and the union's arguments, concluding that the information provided by ECL was insufficient and did not meet the legal standards. The FWC held that the union had demonstrated a clear need for additional information to conduct the ballot effectively. Consequently, the FWC ordered ECL to provide the additional information requested by the union within a specified timeframe.

In its decision, the FWC emphasised the importance of compliance with the statutory obligations concerning employee ballot processes and the necessity for employers to provide complete and accurate information to unions. The final order mandated that ECL furnish the additional information to the AMWU within seven days of the decision, ensuring that the union could proceed with the ballot as required by law.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established