“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Icon Water Limited

Case [2022] FWC 1858


[2022] FWC 1858

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

Icon Water Limited

(B2022/673)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Icon Water Limited

  1. 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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Icon Water Limited (Respondent).

  1. On 14 July 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Bradley Hattenfels of the Applicant declared on 12 July 2022, 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.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR743830.


VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR743831>

Details
AGLC
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Icon Water Limited [2022] FWC 1858
Case
[2022] FWC 1858
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) sought a protected action ballot order from the Fair Work Commission against Icon Water Limited. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, in relation to certain employees of Icon Water Limited. Icon Water Limited did not oppose the application. The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the AMWU had met the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to the proposed protected action ballot, and whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The court needed to determine whether the AMWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Icon Water Limited, and whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met.

The court found that the AMWU had met the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The court was satisfied that the AMWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Icon Water Limited, and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met. Therefore, the court granted the AMWU’s application for a protected action ballot order. An Order was separately issued in PR743830.

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.