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 T/A Isis Central Mill
(B2020/240)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 APRIL 2020

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

[1] 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 employees of Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 21 April 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Edward Couch 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 PR718503.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought an order from the Fair Work Commission to require the Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited to hold a ballot of its employees in relation to protected industrial action. The company, trading as Isis Central Mill, opposed the ballot on the basis that it was not required to hold such a ballot as the proposed action did not involve a matter of protected industrial action. The matter was heard by Deputy President K.E. Foster of the Fair Work Commission. The legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed industrial action by the AMWU's members was protected action, triggering the company's obligation to hold a ballot of its employees. The Commission considered whether the proposed action fell within the definition of protected action under section 367 of the Fair Work Act. The company argued that the proposed action was not protected action as it did not involve a matter of an industrial dispute, or an action in support of, or in opposition to, an employee's right to be covered by an industrial instrument. The AMWU argued that the proposed action was protected action as it involved a matter of an industrial dispute between the company and its employees, and was in support of an employee's right to be covered by an industrial instrument. The Commission found that the proposed action was protected action as it involved a matter of an industrial dispute between the company and its employees, and was in support of an employee's right to be covered by an industrial instrument. The Commission held that the proposed action involved a matter of an industrial dispute as there was a difference of opinion between the parties about the employees' entitlement to a particular benefit, namely, the payment of an annual bonus. The Commission further held that the proposed action was in support of an employee's right to be covered by an industrial instrument as it was intended to compel the company to negotiate the payment of the annual bonus with the AMWU. The Commission ordered the company to hold a ballot of its employees in relation to the proposed industrial action. The company was required to conduct the ballot in accordance with the Commission's directions. The AMWU was granted leave to appeal the decision to the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Limited T/A Isis Central Mill

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established