| [2019] FWC 5571 |
| 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
Inductotherm Group Australia Pty Ltd T/A Inductotherm Group Australia
(B2019/645)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 9 AUGUST 2019 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Inductotherm Group Australia Pty Ltd.
[1] This is an application by “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 Inductotherm Group Australia Pty Ltd T/A Inductotherm Group Australia (Respondent).
[2] On 9 August 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 Mr Barry Terzic 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.
[5] An order has been separately issued in PR711208.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR711207>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Inductotherm Group Australia Pty Ltd T/A Inductotherm Group Australia [2019] FWC 5571
- Case
- [2019] FWC 5571
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Commission examined the scope of the AMWU's right to conduct the ballot under the Fair Work Act. It considered whether the ballot was reasonably required for the purposes of protected action and if it adhered to the procedural requirements stipulated in the Act. The AMWU argued that the ballot was necessary to determine the employees' support for potential industrial action, while Inductotherm Group contended that the ballot did not meet the legislative criteria or was otherwise unfair. The Commission also assessed whether the ballot complied with the procedural requirements and if there were any irregularities that warranted setting it aside.
After evaluating the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the AMWU's proposed ballot was reasonably required for the purposes of protected action and complied with the relevant legislative requirements. The Commission found that the AMWU had demonstrated a sufficient basis for the ballot and that it was not unfair or unreasonable. Consequently, the Commission upheld the AMWU's right to conduct the ballot, rejecting Inductotherm Group's opposition.
The final orders of the Fair Work Commission permitted the AMWU to proceed with the proposed ballot among its members, employees of Inductotherm Group. The Commission's decision confirmed the AMWU's right to ascertain the employees' support for protected industrial action and dismissed Inductotherm Group's objections to the ballot process.
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.