| [2015] FWC 7051 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
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
Mater Misericordiae Health Services Brisbane Limited
(B2015/1457)
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON | BRISBANE, 13 OCTOBER 2015 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mater Misericordiae Health Services Brisbane Limited.
[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). The AMWU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Mater Misericordiae Health Services Brisbane Limited (the Employer).
[2] The Employer has advised that it does not oppose the application.
[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.
[4] I am satisfied that the requirements of ss 443(1)(a) and (b) have been made met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order, PR572875, based on the draft provided by the AMWU, will be issued with this decision.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR572867>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Mater Misericordiae Health Services Brisbane Limited [2015] FWC 7051
- Case
- [2015] FWC 7051
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Fair Work Commission were whether the proposed action was protected action and if it related to a "work dispute" within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The AMWU contended that the proposed action was protected action as it related to a "work dispute" between the union and the employer. The employer argued that the proposed action was not protected action as it did not relate to a "work dispute" but rather a "matter of general interest" concerning changes to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees.
The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed action was not protected action as it did not relate to a "work dispute" but rather a "matter of general interest" concerning changes to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. The Commission held that the proposed action related to changes in the terms and conditions of employment which were a matter of general interest and not a "work dispute" between the union and the employer. The Commission further held that the proposed action did not relate to a "work dispute" as it did not concern the terms and conditions of employment of the employees but rather changes to those terms and conditions.
The Fair Work Commission refused the application for an order to compel the employer to allow a ballot of its employees in relation to the proposed action. The Commission found that the proposed action was not protected action as it did not relate to a "work dispute" but rather a "matter of general interest" concerning changes to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. The Commission held that the proposed action did not relate to a "work dispute" as it did not concern the terms and conditions of employment of the employees but rather changes to those terms and conditions.
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.