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
Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd
(B2019/736)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Knauf Plasterboard 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) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 4 September 2019, 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 Rowan Kearnan of the AMWU declared on 2 September 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR712019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, acting on behalf of its members employed by Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd, sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees to gauge support for potential industrial action. Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, leading to a dispute that was resolved in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the rights and obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the process and timing for conducting a protected action ballot.

The court needed to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. It was essential to assess if the ballot notice was sufficiently detailed and if it adhered to the prescribed timelines. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the union had demonstrated that it had made reasonable attempts to negotiate with the employer before resorting to a ballot. These issues were crucial to deciding whether Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd could lawfully prohibit the union from proceeding with the ballot.

In its judgment, the Federal Court found that the union's ballot notice was not compliant with the legislative requirements. The court held that the notice did not contain all the necessary information and that the union had not made sufficient efforts to negotiate with the employer. Consequently, the court ruled that Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd was entitled to prevent the union from conducting the ballot. The union's appeal was dismissed, and the primary judge's decision was upheld.

The final orders of the court confirmed that Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd could lawfully prohibit the union from conducting the proposed ballot. The union's application for an order compelling Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd to allow the ballot was rejected, and the union was directed to pay Knauf Plasterboard Pty Ltd's costs of the proceedings.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established