| [2015] FWC 4411 |
| 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
MaxiPARTS Pty Ltd
(B2015/631)
COMMISSIONER RYAN | MELBOURNE, 30 JUNE 2015 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of MaxiPARTS Pty Ltd.
[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of MaxiPARTS Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 26 June 2015.
[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.
[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:
“443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order
(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:
(a) an application has been made under section 437; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.”
[4] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR568915>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v MaxiPARTS Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 4411
- Case
- [2015] FWC 4411
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commission considered the AMWU's objectives for the ballot, including their assertion that the ballot was necessary to gauge employee support for protected action in pursuit of better pay and conditions. The Commission also examined whether the proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements of the Act, including whether the AMWU provided MaxiPARTS with sufficient particulars of the proposed action and whether the ballot was reasonably necessary to achieve the union's objectives. The Commission found that the AMWU's proposed ballot was reasonably necessary to achieve their objectives and that it complied with the procedural requirements of the Act.
Accordingly, the Commission authorised the AMWU to conduct the ballot. MaxiPARTS' application for an injunction to prevent the ballot was dismissed. The Commission noted that the proposed ballot was reasonably necessary to achieve the AMWU's objectives and that it complied with the procedural requirements of the Act. The Commission also noted that the AMWU had provided MaxiPARTS with sufficient particulars of the proposed action and that the ballot was not likely to cause significant harm to MaxiPARTS or its employees.
The Commission's decision provides guidance to unions and employers on the procedural requirements for conducting a ballot of employees for protected action and the factors that the Commission will consider in determining whether a proposed ballot is reasonably necessary to achieve a union's objectives. The decision also highlights the importance of providing sufficient particulars of the proposed action to the employer and the need for the ballot to comply with the procedural requirements of the Act.
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.