DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.236 - Application for a majority support determination

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Goodyear Dunlop Tyres - Australia & New Zealand T/A Beaurepaires - Wingfield
(B2015/605)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

ADELAIDE, 30 JUNE 2015

Majority support determination - majority of employees wanting to bargain established.

[1] On 16 June 2015, the AMWU lodged an application for a majority support determination pursuant to s.236 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act). The AMWU sought a determination that the majority of employees of Goodyear Dunlop Tyres - Australia and New Zealand T/A Beaurepaires - Wingfield (Beaurepaires Wingfield) at the Beaurepaires Wingfield site at Wingfield, who are covered by the Vehicle Manufacturing, Repair, Service and Retail Award 2010, want to bargain with Beaurepaires Wingfield for an agreement.

[2] In the application, the AMWU advised that it had conducted a survey of the employees, and provided, for the confidential information of the Fair Work Commission (the FWC), a copy of a petition signed by 16 of the employees.

[3] The application was the subject of a hearing on 24 June 2015. At this hearing, Mr Hardie represented the AMWU and Ms Voucatos, appearing by telephone, represented Beaurepaires Wingfield.

[4] Beaurepaires Wingfield did not dispute the petition, or the manner in which it was completed. It did not dispute the extent to which the group of employees proposed to be covered by the agreement was fairly chosen. However, it expressed concern that the employees may not be eligible to be members of the AMWU. Beaurepaires Wingfield subsequently provided to me, on a confidential basis, a list of all of the employees and the classifications.

[5] On the basis of that information, I am satisfied that the AMWU is able to be a bargaining representative for some, if not all, of the employees and that a majority of those employees signed the AMWU petition. Rule 1E of the AMWU Rules provides for that coverage.

[6] Section 237 of the FW Act requires that the FWC must make a majority support determination if it is satisfied about various matters.

[7] Given that there is no dispute relative to the petition, I am satisfied that this petition establishes that a majority of the employees employed by Beaurepaires Wingfield want to bargain with Beaurepaires Wingfield for an agreement. Beaurepaires Wingfield has not yet agreed to bargain for such an agreement. I am satisfied that the group of employees to be covered by the proposed agreement is fairly chosen and in all of these circumstances it is reasonable to make the determination.

[8] A majority support determination (PR568903) will be issued accordingly.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

S Batchelor and T Hardie for the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)

L Vocatos and T Hudson for Goodyear Dunlop Tyres - Australia & New Zealand T/A Beaurepaires - Wingfield

Hearing details:

2015.

Adelaide:

June 24.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), against Goodyear Dunlop Tyres - Australia and New Zealand T/A Beaurepaires - Wingfield, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the AMWU was an appropriate bargaining agent for a majority of the employees in the bargaining area. The dispute arose from the employer's objection to the AMWU being recognised as the appropriate bargaining agent for a majority of the employees, leading to a hearing before the Commission.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the AMWU had established majority support among the employees, which would entitle it to be recognised as the appropriate bargaining agent for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Commission needed to assess the evidence presented by both parties regarding the level of support for the AMWU among the employees in the bargaining area. The employer contested the AMWU's claim of majority support, arguing that the union did not have sufficient backing from the employees.

In its decision, the Commission thoroughly examined the evidence provided by the AMWU and the employer. It considered the application for recognition, the responses from the employer, the survey results, and the arguments from both sides. The Commission concluded that the AMWU had established that it had majority support among the employees. The employer's objections were not sufficient to undermine the evidence presented by the AMWU, and therefore, the AMWU was entitled to be recognised as the appropriate bargaining agent. The Commission found that the AMWU had demonstrated the necessary level of support among the employees, and thus, it made the determination in favour of the AMWU.

The Commission ordered that the AMWU be recognised as the appropriate bargaining agent for a majority of the employees in the specified bargaining area. This decision allows the AMWU to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the employees with the employer, facilitating the negotiation of enterprise agreements and other industrial matters. The employer was directed to take all necessary steps to facilitate the recognition of the AMWU as the appropriate bargaining agent.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Goodyear Dunlop Tyres - Australia and New Zealand T/A Beaurepaires - Wingfield

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established