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
Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber
(B2019/437)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 4 JUNE 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hyne & Son Pty Ltd t/a Hyne Timber.

[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 Hyne & Son Pty Ltd t/a Hyne Timber (Respondent).

[2] On 4 June 2019, 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 Edward John Couch of the AMWU declared on 3 June 2019, 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 PR708999.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), on behalf of its members employed by Hyne & Son Pty Ltd trading as Hyne Timber, sought to conduct a protected action ballot amongst the employees. Hyne & Son Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not in compliance with the relevant industrial laws. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the proposed ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the ballot notice provided by the AMWU was adequate and if the timing of the ballot was permissible under the Act. The court also had to consider whether there was any procedural unfairness in the way the ballot was proposed.

The Fair Work Commission assessed the sufficiency of the ballot notice, considering the requirements under section 368 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the notice was deficient in that it did not clearly outline the specific industrial action being proposed, nor did it specify the exact nature of the proposed industrial action. The Commission also noted that the timing of the ballot did not allow for adequate consultation with the employer. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was not in compliance with the necessary legal standards. The Commission did not find any procedural unfairness in the process.

The Fair Work Commission ultimately dismissed the application for the proposed protected action ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of clear communication and adequate timing in the context of industrial action under the Fair Work Act.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Hyne & Son Pty Ltd T/A Hyne Timber

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established