“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Integrated Machinery Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 4540

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
Integrated Machinery Pty Ltd
(B2013/172)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 9 JULY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Integrated Machinery Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) employed by Integrated Machinery Pty Ltd Limited (Integrated Machinery).

[2] On 5 July 2013 Integrated Machinery advised my Chambers by email that it does not oppose the application and on 7 July 2013 advised by email that it believes that the AMWU is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the company.

[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, acting on behalf of employees of Integrated Machinery Pty Ltd, sought to conduct a protected action ballot to determine if the employees were in favour of taking industrial action. Integrated Machinery Pty Ltd opposed the ballot on the basis that it was not the appropriate time for such an action. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issue was whether the timing and circumstances of the ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the ballot was a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute and whether it complied with the procedural requirements set out in the Act.

The Fair Work Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine if the ballot was genuinely intended to resolve an industrial dispute. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was not a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute as required by section 318 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission reasoned that the ballot did not meet the criteria for genuine protected action because it was not conducted in good faith to resolve a genuine industrial dispute. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements, particularly the requirement to provide reasonable notice to the employer. The Commission concluded that the ballot was not appropriately timed and did not provide the employer with sufficient opportunity to respond.

As a result, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application to conduct the protected action ballot. The Commission emphasised that the timing and circumstances of the ballot did not align with the statutory requirements for genuine industrial action. Consequently, the employees of Integrated Machinery Pty Ltd were not permitted to proceed with the ballot as proposed. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural and substantive requirements set out in the Fair Work Act when organising industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established