"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited

[2023] FWC 1080

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

Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited

(B2023/403)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 8 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited

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 Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited (Respondent).

On 5 May 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Edward John Couch of the Applicant declared on 3 May 2023, 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 PR761701.

VICE 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), applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, and the Commission was informed that the employer did not oppose the application. The matter was decided on the papers without the need for a hearing.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer, and if the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The union argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer, and that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been satisfied. The employer did not contest the application, and the Commission was required to determine whether the union's application met the requirements of the Act.

In determining the matter, the Vice President considered the statutory declaration of Edward John Couch of the AMWU, which set out the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer and that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer. The Vice President was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. The Commission issued an Order in PR761701.

This decision highlights the importance of unions following the necessary procedures when seeking to take protected industrial action. The Commission will consider the evidence provided by the union and the employer in determining whether the union has genuinely tried to reach an agreement and whether the notification time has been met. In this case, the Commission was satisfied that the union had met the requirements of the Act, and an Order was issued in favour of the union.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established