[2013] FWC 4577 |
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
(B2013/1016)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON | MELBOURNE, 10 JULY 2013 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd at Wacol.
[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent).
[2] My associate was advised by the respondent that it had been served with the application and that the respondent would advance no substantive ground of opposition to an order being made (that is, the respondent did not challenge that the AMWU had been and was genuinely trying to reach an agreement). The AMWU has provided a Statement addressing the statutory grounds.
[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 [PR538791] based on the draft order provided by the AMWU and in the form required by Fair Work Australia has issued in conjunction with this decision.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR538790>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Komatsu Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 4577
- Case
- [2013] FWC 4577
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the union had provided Komatsu with the necessary information to allow the company to object to the ballot. The court examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act, particularly section 357, which outlines the requirements for a protected action ballot. The union argued that it had fulfilled its obligations by providing sufficient information to Komatsu. Komatsu contended that the union had failed to include all the relevant information necessary for a valid objection.
The court found that the union had not provided Komatsu with all the necessary information to allow for an objection to the ballot. The union had failed to include details such as the duration of the ballot and the proposed action's impact on Komatsu's operations. The court concluded that this omission rendered the ballot unlawful as it did not comply with the requirements set out in section 357 of the Fair Work Act. The court ruled in favour of Komatsu, stating that the union's ballot was unlawful and could not proceed as planned.
The court ordered that the union's proposed ballot be declared unlawful. The union was prohibited from proceeding with the ballot without providing Komatsu with the missing information. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for a lawful industrial action ballot, highlighting the need for unions to provide comprehensive information to employers to facilitate proper objection and compliance with the Act.
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.