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
Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd
(B2016/7)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 27 JANUARY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 27 January 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr B Terzic of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.
[5] An order has been separately issued in PR576474.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), and Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd. The AMWU sought to conduct a protected action ballot of the employees of Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute was brought before the court to determine whether the proposed ballot was lawful and if the employer had any grounds to challenge the ballot.

The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the AMWU had the right to conduct the ballot, if the ballot was for a protected action, and if the employer had any valid objections to the proposed ballot. The court also needed to consider whether the employer had complied with the necessary legal procedures and if the ballot met the requirements set out in the relevant legislation.

The court examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to determine the validity of the AMWU's proposed ballot. It found that the union had the right to conduct the ballot as it was for a protected action and that the employer had not provided any valid grounds to challenge the ballot. The court concluded that the employer had complied with the necessary legal procedures, and the ballot met the requirements of the legislation. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the AMWU and allowed the proposed ballot to proceed.

The final orders of the court were that Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd was required to allow the AMWU to conduct the proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The employer was also required to provide the necessary facilities and assistance to facilitate the ballot. The court emphasised the importance of the right to conduct protected action ballots and the need for employers to comply with the legal requirements when such ballots are proposed.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Malteurop Australia 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