| [2018] FWC 3067 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
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
Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd
(B2018/421)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 29 MAY 2018 |
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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
[2] On 29 May 2018 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 G Bubb of the Applicant 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 PR607553.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR607551>
- AGLC
- "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Manildra Energy Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 3067
- Case
- [2018] FWC 3067
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the AMWU had satisfied the prerequisites for holding a protected action ballot as outlined in the Fair Work Act. The AMWU argued that the proposed ballot was necessary to ascertain the members' willingness to engage in protected action, while Manildra Energy contended that the ballot was premature and should not proceed without prior engagement with the company. The Commission had to assess whether the AMWU's proposed ballot met the statutory requirements and whether there were any factors that justified delaying the ballot process.
In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the AMWU had demonstrated a bona fide intention to take protected action and had provided sufficient evidence to support the necessity of the ballot. The Commission determined that the AMWU had acted in good faith and that the proposed ballot was not an abuse of the protected action process. The company's concerns about the timing and potential impact of the ballot did not outweigh the union's right to gauge its members' sentiments. Consequently, the Commission authorised the AMWU to proceed with the proposed ballot, ensuring that the employees' right to engage in protected action was upheld.
The Commission's decision was based on a careful consideration of the statutory framework and the evidence presented by both parties. By authorising the ballot, the Commission affirmed the importance of allowing unions to effectively communicate with their members and to understand their views on potential industrial action. The outcome underscored the Commission's role in facilitating a balanced approach to industrial relations, recognising both the rights of employers and employees.
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.