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
G H Varley Pty Ltd
(B2020/158)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 13 MARCH 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of G H Varley 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) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of G H Varley Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 13 March 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Cory Wright of the AMWU declared on 13 March 2020, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR717494.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a protected action ballot of employees of G H Varley Pty Ltd (Varley). The Fair Work Commission (FWC) held that the ballot was not required and dismissed the application. The AMWU sought to conduct a protected action ballot of Varley's employees. Varley is an engineering company with approximately 200 employees. The AMWU claimed that the employees had been subject to adverse terms and conditions as a result of changes in workplace arrangements. The Commission held that the AMWU had not established that the employees had been subject to adverse terms and conditions as a result of the changes, and therefore the proposed ballot was not required. The Commission dismissed the AMWU's application.

The AMWU argued that there had been an adverse change in the employees' terms and conditions, which justified the proposed ballot. Varley argued that there had been no adverse change in terms and conditions, and that the proposed ballot was therefore not required. The Commission held that there had been no adverse change in the employees' terms and conditions. The AMWU's claim was therefore dismissed. The Commission held that the AMWU had not established that the changes had resulted in an adverse change in the employees' terms and conditions. The proposed ballot was therefore not required. The AMWU's application was dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the AMWU's application for a protected action ballot of Varley's employees. The Commission held that the AMWU had not established that the employees had been subject to adverse terms and conditions as a result of the changes, and therefore the proposed ballot was not required. The AMWU's application was dismissed with no orders for costs.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v G H Varley 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