“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Hydro-Electric Corporation T/A Entura

[2022] FWC 2593

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

Hydro-Electric Corporation T/A Entura

(B2022/1442)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hydro-Electric Corporation Trading As Entura

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 Hydro-Electric Corporation T/A Entura (Respondent).

On 26 September 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 John Short 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 PR746238.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Hydro-Electric Corporation T/A Entura. The AMWU sought to conduct a ballot of its members in relation to proposed protected actions, which required approval from the Fair Work Commission. The Hydro-Electric Corporation did not object to the application, leading to the Deputy President's decision to determine the matter based on the submitted documents without a hearing.

The legal issues in the case centred on whether the AMWU had genuinely attempted to negotiate in good faith with the Hydro-Electric Corporation, whether the notification requirements under section 443 of the Fair Work Act were met, and whether the proposed protected action was justified. The Deputy President needed to assess if the AMWU had taken sufficient steps to reach an agreement with the employer and if the application fulfilled the necessary legislative requirements for a protected action ballot.

The Deputy President concluded that the AMWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the Hydro-Electric Corporation and had taken the necessary steps to comply with section 443(1) of the Act. The evidence, including a declaration by Mr. John Short of the AMWU, demonstrated that the union had been negotiating in good faith and that a notification period had been provided. Given these findings, the Deputy President was satisfied that the application met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot.

Consequently, the Deputy President issued an order allowing the AMWU to proceed with the ballot. This decision was made in light of the union's efforts to negotiate with the employer and the compliance with the Fair Work Act's requirements. The order is separate and distinct, documented under PR746238.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established