"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd

[2018] FWC 4454

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)

Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd

(B2018/643)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 30 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Monadelphous Engineering 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 Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 30 July 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr P Golby 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 PR609516.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, also known as the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, brought an action against Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought to conduct a ballot of employees for protected industrial action. Monadelphous Engineering contested the ballot, asserting that the union had not met the procedural requirements for such an action. The central issue before the Commission was whether the union had adhered to the necessary legislative requirements to conduct a lawful ballot for protected action.

The Commission considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections relating to the conduct of protected action ballots. It examined whether the union had complied with the procedural prerequisites, including providing adequate notice and information to the employees. The union argued that it had fulfilled all necessary steps, while Monadelphous Engineering contended that there were deficiencies in the union's process. The Commission assessed the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine whether the union's ballot process was in accordance with the statutory requirements.

In its decision, the Commission found that the union had not strictly adhered to the procedural requirements for conducting a ballot for protected action. Despite some efforts by the union to comply, there were omissions and errors in the notice and information provided to the employees. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the union's ballot was not lawful, and the application for authorisation of the proposed protected action was dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of strict compliance with the legislative requirements to ensure the validity of any proposed industrial action.

No further orders were made by the Commission beyond the dismissal of the union's application. The decision underscored the necessity for unions to meticulously follow the statutory procedures when seeking to conduct a ballot for protected action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established