“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Metso Outotec Australia Limited Summary

[2021] FWC 5948

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

Metso Outotec Australia Limited

(B2021/885)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Metso Outotec Australia Limited

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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Metso Outotec Australia Limited (Respondent).

On 16 September 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Bradley Pidgeon of the Applicant declared on 15 September 2021, 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 PR734087.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), also known as the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union”, has applied to the Fair Work Commission for an order allowing a protected action ballot for certain employees of Metso Outotec Australia Limited. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 and is in relation to the failure of the parties to reach an enterprise agreement. The application was made on 16 September 2021, and the respondent did not oppose the application. The matter was determined by Vice President Catanzariti on the papers without a hearing. The union has provided a statutory declaration by Bradley Pidgeon outlining the union’s attempts to reach an agreement with the employer and the steps taken in the bargaining process.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach agreement with the employer and whether the notification time for the ballot had been met. The union had to demonstrate that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer and that the requisite notification period had elapsed. The Commission found that the union had provided evidence of its attempts to reach an agreement and that the notification period had been met. The union was therefore entitled to a protected action ballot.

The Commission found that the union had provided sufficient evidence of its attempts to reach an agreement with the employer. The union had provided a statutory declaration outlining the steps it had taken in bargaining with the employer and that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the employer. The Commission was satisfied that the union had met the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission also found that the notification period had elapsed, and the union was therefore entitled to a protected action ballot. The Commission issued an Order in PR734087, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission has granted the union’s application for a protected action ballot. The union is now entitled to proceed with the ballot in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer is not entitled to oppose the ballot, and the employees are entitled to participate in the ballot. The Commission’s decision provides clarity on the legal requirements for a protected action ballot and the evidence that the union must provide to meet those requirements. The decision also provides guidance on the notification period for a protected action ballot.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Metso Outotec Australia Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established