"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Joy Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 986

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Joy Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd
(B2013/31)

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER CARGILL	SYDNEY, 12 FEBRUARY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Joy Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Joy Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd (the respondent) in Minto New South Wales.

[2] My associate received correspondence from the respondent acknowledging that it had been served with the application and did not contest the application.

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

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR534030] has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) took Joy Manufacturing Company Pty Ltd to the Federal Court of Australia to seek authorisation for a protected action ballot, aiming to allow its members, who were employees of the respondent company, to engage in strike action. The respondents opposed the application on the grounds that the ballot was not related to a genuine industrial dispute and that the ballot notice had not been properly served. The court was required to determine whether the AMWU had demonstrated that there was a genuine industrial dispute and whether the ballot notice was validly served.

In its judgment, the court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the AMWU had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was a genuine industrial dispute. The evidence presented was largely speculative and did not establish a clear link between the proposed industrial action and a dispute with the employer. Furthermore, the court held that the ballot notice had not been properly served as it did not include all the information required by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). As a result, the application was dismissed, and the respondents were not required to facilitate the ballot.

Consequently, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed the AMWU's application for authorisation of a protected action ballot. The court held that the union had not demonstrated a genuine industrial dispute and that the ballot notice was invalid due to its failure to include all required information. This decision underscores the importance of providing clear and comprehensive evidence when seeking to organise protected industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established