| [2022] FWC 1565 |
| 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
Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd
(B2022/597)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 21 JUNE 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fonterra 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 (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 Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
On 20 June 2022, 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 Michael Wickham 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 PR742847.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR742846>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1565
- Case
- [2022] FWC 1565
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the AMWU had met the notification time for the proposed agreement and if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been satisfied. The AMWU submitted that it had fulfilled these requirements and provided a declaration from Mr Michael Wickham, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with Fonterra.
The Deputy President found that, based on the material before the court, including the declaration from Mr Wickham, the AMWU had indeed met the notification time for the proposed agreement and had satisfied the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was successful.
An order was issued in PR742847, granting the AMWU permission to proceed with the protected action ballot as sought.
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.