| [2019] FWC 4361 |
| 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
Paper Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/483)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 24 JUNE 2019 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Paper Australia Pty Limited.
[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 Paper Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
[2] On 21 June 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 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 PR709631.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR709630>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Paper Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 4361
- Case
- [2019] FWC 4361
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the AMWU had established a genuine dispute with Paper Australia. The court examined the AMWU's application for a protected action ballot, the nature of the dispute, and whether the AMWU had complied with the necessary procedures. The court also considered whether the AMWU had established a dispute that was likely to result in protected action. The Federal Circuit Court held that the AMWU had not demonstrated a genuine dispute with Paper Australia. The court found that the AMWU had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that there was a dispute with Paper Australia, and that the dispute was likely to result in protected action. The court also held that the AMWU had not complied with the necessary procedures for conducting a protected action ballot. The court dismissed the AMWU's appeal.
The court held that the AMWU had not established a genuine dispute with Paper Australia, and therefore, the requirements for a protected action ballot had not been satisfied. The court found that the AMWU had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that there was a dispute with Paper Australia, and that the dispute was likely to result in protected action. The court also held that the AMWU had not complied with the necessary procedures for conducting a protected action ballot. The court dismissed the AMWU's appeal and upheld the decision of the FWC. The AMWU's application for an order that Paper Australia provide information and access to the premises necessary for the AMWU to conduct a protected action ballot of Paper Australia's employees was dismissed.
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.