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
Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/1131)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 26 NOVEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Manildra Energy Australia 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) (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 Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 24 November 2021, the Fair Work 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 statutory declaration of Gavin Bubb of the Applicant declared on 19 November 2021, 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.

[5] An Order has been separately issued in PR736232.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) challenged a decision of Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd (Manildra) to refuse to conduct a ballot of its employees regarding proposed protected action. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The AMWU sought an order that Manildra was required to conduct a ballot of its employees in relation to the proposed protected action. The court needed to determine whether Manildra was required to conduct the ballot and if the union had a right to compel Manildra to do so. The court considered whether Manildra had provided the union with sufficient information to enable the union to prepare a ballot paper for the proposed protected action. The court found that Manildra had not provided the union with sufficient information to enable the union to prepare a ballot paper and that the union had a right to compel Manildra to conduct a ballot of its employees in relation to the proposed protected action.

The court held that Manildra was required to provide the union with sufficient information to enable the union to prepare a ballot paper for the proposed protected action. The court found that Manildra had not provided the union with sufficient information to enable the union to prepare a ballot paper for the proposed protected action. The court held that the union had a right to compel Manildra to conduct a ballot of its employees in relation to the proposed protected action. The court ordered Manildra to conduct a ballot of its employees in relation to the proposed protected action and to provide the union with sufficient information to enable the union to prepare a ballot paper for the proposed protected action.

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