| [2022] FWC 3137 |
| 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
McPherson’s Printing Pty Ltd
(B2022/1761)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 25 NOVEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of McPherson’s Printing Pty Ltd.
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 McPherson’s Printing Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
The Respondent maintained an objection to the protected action ballot order being made but did not outline a statutory basis for this and nor did it request to be heard in addition to the correspondence it had sent to my Chambers outlining its objection.
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 Andrew Bonello 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 PR748325.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR748323>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v McPherson's Printing Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 3137
- Case
- [2022] FWC 3137
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the court was whether the AMWU met the statutory requirements to conduct a protected action ballot under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved assessing the AMWU's efforts to negotiate in good faith with McPherson’s Printing Pty Ltd and whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The AMWU's declaration, outlining their bargaining efforts and genuine attempts to reach an agreement, was a central piece of evidence in this regard.
The Deputy President found that the AMWU had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot. The declaration provided by Mr Andrew Bonello of the AMWU, which detailed the union's negotiation efforts and its genuine attempt to reach an agreement, was deemed sufficient. The Deputy President was satisfied that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met and that all necessary conditions under section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. Consequently, the court issued an order allowing the AMWU to proceed with the ballot.
The Fair Work Commission ordered that the AMWU could proceed with the ballot among the employees of McPherson’s Printing Pty Ltd for potential protected action, as the union had demonstrated its compliance with the statutory requirements. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the absence of a valid objection from the respondent, McPherson’s Printing Pty Ltd.
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.