| [2017] FWC 1939 |
| 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
NCI Holdings Pty Ltd T/A NCI Packaging Pty Ltd
(B2017/274)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 7 APRIL 2017 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of NCI Holdings Pty Ltd T/A NCI Packaging Pty Ltd.
[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of NCI Holdings Pty Ltd T/A NCI Packaging Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
[2] On 7 April 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.
[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr D Vroland 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.
[5] An order has been separately issued in PR591633.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR591632>
- AGLC
- "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v NCI Holdings Pty Ltd T/A NCI Packaging Pty Ltd [2017] FWC 1939
- Case
- [2017] FWC 1939
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues revolved around the validity of the proposed ballot under section 45 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer contested the ballot's validity, asserting procedural flaws in its conduct. The court had to determine whether the employer's objections were justified and whether the ballot could proceed as planned.
Justice Edelman examined the employer's arguments closely, focusing on procedural compliance and the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The judge found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claims of procedural irregularities. Consequently, the court ruled that the proposed ballot was valid, and the employees could proceed with their intended industrial action. The employer's objections were dismissed, and the court issued a declaration in favour of the union.
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.