| [2022] FWC 533 |
| 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
Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd
(B2022/165)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 10 MARCH 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd
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 Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 7 March 2022, 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 Kegan Wilson Scherf of the Applicant declared on 3 March 2022, 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 PR739178.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR739179>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 533
- Case
- [2022] FWC 533
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether the AMWU had met the requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 to conduct a ballot for protected action. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the AMWU had genuinely been engaged in good-faith bargaining and if the notification period for the proposed agreement had been properly observed. The AMWU's application was supported by a statutory declaration from Kegan Wilson Scherf, detailing the union's efforts in bargaining and the steps taken to meet the statutory requirements.
In issuing the decision, Vice President Catanzariti found that the AMWU had satisfied the prerequisites set out in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Vice President was satisfied with the evidence provided by the AMWU, including the statutory declaration, which demonstrated the union's genuine efforts in bargaining and the compliance with the notification period. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted, and the AMWU was authorised to proceed with the ballot as requested.
As a result of the decision, the Fair Work Commission issued an order permitting the AMWU to conduct the protected action ballot for the employees of Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd, in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. This order was issued separately in PR739178.
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.