“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma Summary

[2022] FWC 2024

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

Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma

(B2022/1158)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma.

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 Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma (Respondent).

On 1 August 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Benedict Martin 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR744369.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd, trading as Mayne Pharma. The application was made to the Fair Work Commission, and the case was heard by Deputy President Clancy in Melbourne on 1 August 2022. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the union had fulfilled the necessary criteria to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action.

The legal issues for the Fair Work Commission to determine included whether the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and if the requisite notification period had been observed. The union submitted a declaration by Mr. Benedict Martin, affirming their efforts in bargaining and genuine attempts to reach an agreement with Mayne Pharma. The Commission had to assess the validity of these assertions based on the provided documentation and decide whether the union had met the requirements outlined in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act.

Upon reviewing the material, including Mr. Martin's declaration and the union's negotiation efforts, Deputy President Clancy concluded that the union had indeed satisfied the notification time for the proposed agreement and fulfilled the necessary conditions under section 443(1) of the Act. Given Mayne Pharma's lack of objection to the application, the Commission decided to proceed with the matter without holding a formal hearing. Consequently, the Commission granted the union's application for a protected action ballot order.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order in PR744369, allowing the AMWU to proceed with the ballot for protected industrial action. This decision reflects the Commission's determination that the union had met the statutory requirements and was justified in its pursuit of protected action.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd T/A Mayne Pharma

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established