“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Essity Holding Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2023] FWC 772

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

Essity Holding Australia Pty Ltd

(B2023/299)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 31 MARCH 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Essity Holding Australia Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Essity Holding Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 30 March 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Andrew Bonello 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR760750.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), and Essity Holding Australia Pty Ltd. The AMWU applied for a protected action ballot order for certain employees of Essity, as allowed under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was made to facilitate a ballot for potential industrial action due to unresolved negotiations. Essity did not oppose the application, allowing the matter to proceed on paper without a hearing.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the AMWU was genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with Essity and if the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The court examined the declaration from Mr. Andrew Bonello of the AMWU, which detailed the union's efforts in bargaining with Essity. The union had to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been observed. The court's decision hinged on whether these conditions were fulfilled.

In determining the matter, the Deputy President, Clancy, was satisfied that the AMWU had met the requirements for a protected action ballot. The union's declaration and the lack of objection from Essity were pivotal in this decision. The court confirmed that the notification period was adhered to and that the union had genuinely engaged in bargaining. As a result, the court granted the AMWU's 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 Essity Holding Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established