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

[2014] FWC 840

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO 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
Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd
(B2014/468)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 5 FEBRUARY 2014

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

[1] The Decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on 8 November 2013 ([2014] FWC 840, PR547419) is corrected:

(a) by renumbering the second paragraph [1] to paragraph [4] as paragraphs [2] to [5]; and

(b) by deleting the words “the NUW” in the renumbered paragraph [3] and replacing with “the AMWU”.

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 protected action ballot by employees of Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd was not invalid. The dispute arose from the employees' intention to take industrial action in response to the company's proposal to outsource certain functions. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The AMWU argued that the proposed ballot was lawful and in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Malteurop Australia Pty Ltd contended that the ballot was invalid as it did not comply with the Act and would result in a detriment to the company.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed ballot was invalid under section 372 of the Act, which outlines the conditions for a protected action ballot. The central issue was whether the ballot was a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute in accordance with the Act or if it was instead an attempt to coerce the employer into making concessions. The court had to examine the nature of the proposed industrial action, the reasons for the employees' dissatisfaction, and whether the ballot was a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the proposed ballot was not invalid. The court held that the employees' intention to take industrial action was a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute, as required by section 372 of the Act. The court considered the employees' dissatisfaction with the proposed outsourcing of certain functions and determined that the proposed ballot was a reasonable response to the employer's actions. The court also noted that the employees had followed the necessary procedural requirements for a protected action ballot, and therefore, the ballot was not invalid.

As a result of the court's decision, the AMWU was successful in its claim for a declaration that the proposed protected action ballot was not invalid. The court's decision reinforces the importance of following the correct procedures for a protected action ballot and highlights the need for employers to consider the potential consequences of outsourcing certain functions. The final orders of the court were that the AMWU's claim was successful, and the proposed ballot was not invalid.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established