| [2018] FWC 5630 |
| 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
Joy Global Australia Pty Ltd
(B2018/797)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 6 SEPTEMBER 2018 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Joy Global Australia Pty Ltd.
[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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Joy Global Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
[2] On 5 September 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.
[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr J Stewart 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 PR700170.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR700169>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Joy Global Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 5630
- Case
- [2018] FWC 5630
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission centred around whether the union had correctly followed the necessary procedures under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to conduct a protected action ballot. The primary concern was whether the union had provided Joy Global with the requisite notice and information about the proposed ballot, as required by the Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the union's actions were reasonable and in good faith, and if the proposed ballot would cause undue hardship or harm to the employer’s operations.
The FWC examined the procedural aspects of the union's application and found that the AMWU had indeed complied with the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act. The Commission held that the union had provided sufficient notice and information to Joy Global, and that the proposed ballot was not unreasonable or in bad faith. The FWC also concluded that the potential for operational disruption, while significant, did not outweigh the importance of allowing employees to express their views on potential industrial action. The Commission approved the ballot, emphasising the importance of allowing employees to exercise their rights under the Act.
The FWC ordered that the protected action ballot could proceed as planned, subject to certain conditions to minimise any operational impact on Joy Global. The union was required to provide additional information to the FWC to ensure that the ballot was conducted in a manner that would not unduly disrupt the employer's operations. This decision underscored the balance the FWC must strike between protecting the rights of employees to organise and the legitimate interests of employers to maintain operational efficiency.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.