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

[2022] FWC 2079

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 Ltd

(B2022/1180)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 5 AUGUST 2022

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

This is an application by the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 5 August 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR744544.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) seeking a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd (Iplex). The AMWU was seeking to hold a protected action ballot for its members employed by Iplex. Iplex did not object to the application, and the matter was determined on the basis of the submitted documentation. The AMWU had provided a declaration from Mr Barry Terzic, who stated that the union had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with Iplex through bargaining processes.

The primary legal issue the FWC was required to address was whether the AMWU had fulfilled the prerequisites for a protected action ballot under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). This included confirming that there was a notification period for the proposed agreement and that the AMWU had complied with the requirements set out in section 443(1) of the Act. The FWC had to assess the evidence provided by the AMWU to determine whether the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with Iplex and whether the conditions for a ballot were met.

The FWC found that the AMWU had satisfied the necessary conditions for a protected action ballot. Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Iplex and that the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The FWC also noted that the union's declaration and the lack of objection from Iplex supported the conclusion that the AMWU had fulfilled the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act. Consequently, the FWC granted the AMWU's application for a protected action ballot order.

As a result of the FWC's determination, an order was issued allowing the AMWU to proceed with the protected action ballot for its members employed by Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd. This decision underscores the importance of genuine bargaining efforts and adherence to the legal framework set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 when seeking to hold a protected action ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established