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
Laminex Group Pty Ltd
(B2021/628)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

CANBERRA, 6 AUGUST 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Laminex Group 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 Laminex Group Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 6 August 2021, the 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 declaration of Scott Anton Robert Stanford of the AMWU made on 4 August 2021, 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 PR732595.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot of employees of Laminex Group Pty Ltd was not protected action for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. The AMWU contended that the proposed ballot was not protected action as it was not related to an industrial dispute and did not involve employees of an employer. The Laminex Group Pty Ltd argued that the ballot was validly protected action under the Act, as it related to an industrial dispute and involved employees of an employer.

The court examined the legal definition of "protected action" under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and considered whether the proposed ballot met the criteria for protected action. Justice Edelman held that the proposed ballot was not protected action as it did not relate to an industrial dispute, as defined by the Act. The court found that the ballot was not a response to an existing industrial dispute but rather an attempt to create one. The court also found that the proposed ballot did not involve employees of an employer as it was not limited to employees of the Laminex Group Pty Ltd but rather included employees of other employers in the industry.

The court granted the AMWU's application for a declaration that the proposed ballot was not protected action for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court found that the proposed ballot did not meet the criteria for protected action as it did not relate to an industrial dispute and did not involve employees of an employer. The court's decision provides clarity on the scope of protected action under the Act and the requirements for a ballot to be considered protected action. This case serves as an important reminder for unions and employers to ensure that any proposed industrial action complies with the requirements of the Act to avoid potential legal challenges.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Laminex Group 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