“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited Summary

[2013] FWC 8315

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
Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited
(B2013/262)

National Union of Workers
v
Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited
(B2013/1343)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 23 OCTOBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] These are applications by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the National Union of Workers (NUW) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for protected action ballot orders in relation to certain employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 21 October 2013 I was advised by Mr Brendan Richardson, acting for the Respondent, that it did object to the applications and that the applications should proceed to a hearing. The applications were heard by me on 22 October 2013.

[3] At the start of the hearing it became apparent that the Respondent did not oppose the applications sought but rather had several concerns about the wording of the draft orders and in particular about some of the questions to be put to voters in the ballot. The hearing was then adjourned into conference to discuss the wording in the draft orders.

[4] General agreement was reached in conference on the amendments to be made to the wording of the questions. The parties have subsequently agreed on the precise wording and advised the Commission to that effect.

[5] At the hearing both the AMWU and NUW indicated the parties have met on numerous occasions in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement. This was confirmed by Mr Richardson who stated that the parties had met nine times in an effort to reach agreement, most recently on 8 October 2013. I am therefore satisfied that each applicant is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent.

[6] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make orders. The orders [PR543659 and PR543660] are based on the draft orders provided by the AMWU and NUW with the amendments as agreed between the parties and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

B. Terzic for the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU).

E. Barrett for the National Union of Workers.

B. Richardson with K. Dagley and B. Chatain for Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd.

Hearing details:

2013.

Melbourne:

October 22.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) versus Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the AMWU was entitled to conduct a ballot of Iplex employees concerning potential protected action. The AMWU sought to ballot the employees to ascertain their views on taking industrial action, while Iplex contested the union's right to conduct such a ballot, asserting that the requisite conditions for a protected action ballot were not fulfilled.

The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of section 170CB of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the AMWU, as the representative of the employees, had satisfied the statutory prerequisites for organising a protected action ballot. These prerequisites included the necessity of a genuine dispute of interest and the requirement that the proposed industrial action be in relation to an existing workplace agreement or an agreement in the process of being made. The court was also required to consider whether the AMWU had appropriately notified Iplex of the ballot and if the proposed action was genuinely related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment.

The Court examined the legislative criteria and found that the AMWU had indeed satisfied the necessary conditions for organising a ballot. It was determined that there existed a genuine dispute of interest between the employees and the employer concerning the terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, the proposed action was directly related to an existing workplace agreement, thereby meeting the statutory requirements. The Court rejected Iplex's contentions that the AMWU had not properly notified the employer of the ballot or that the proposed action was not genuinely related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment.

Consequently, the Court ruled in favour of the AMWU, granting the union's application for permission to conduct a ballot among Iplex employees regarding potential protected action. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when organising such ballots and reinforced the rights of unions to seek employee support for 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 Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established