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
O-I Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2019/419)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of O-I Operations (Australia) 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) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of O-I Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A O-I Australia (Respondent).

[2] On 24 May 2019, 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 Raoul Wainwright 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 PR708671.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and O-I Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd, a company operating in the manufacturing sector. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of O-I Operations, aiming to gauge support for potential industrial action. The company opposed the ballot, contending that the union had not properly notified them of the ballot's purpose and scope, nor had it provided sufficient detail about the potential action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the union had complied with the necessary procedural requirements when seeking to conduct a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had adequately notified the employer of the ballot's purpose and scope, and whether the union had provided enough detail about the potential action to allow the employer to respond appropriately. The union argued that it had fulfilled all requirements, while the employer maintained that the union had not provided sufficient information.

The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the union, determining that the union had indeed complied with the necessary procedural requirements. The court held that the union had sufficiently notified the employer of the ballot's purpose and scope and had provided adequate detail about the potential action. The union had outlined the potential industrial action and the reasons for it, allowing the employer to respond in an informed manner. The court rejected the employer's contention that more detail was required and found that the union had acted within its rights.

The court ordered that the employer must facilitate the union's proposed protected action ballot among its employees. The union was permitted to proceed with the ballot as planned, and the employer was directed to take necessary steps to ensure that the ballot could be conducted without interference. This decision reinforced the importance of clear communication and procedural adherence in industrial relations, ensuring that both parties could engage in meaningful dialogue regarding potential industrial action.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established