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
Paper Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/1023)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 31 OCTOBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Paper 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 Paper Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 30 October 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 N Grealy 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 PR59721.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought an application against Paper Australia Pty Ltd, seeking an order to allow employees to conduct a protected action ballot. The dispute arose when Paper Australia sought to restrict the timing and manner of the ballot, arguing that it would interfere with their operations. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission (FWC), the body responsible for resolving workplace disputes under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that the ballot was essential to inform employees about potential industrial action and to empower them to make informed decisions about participating in such action. Paper Australia contended that the ballot would disrupt their business and cause significant harm, justifying restrictions on the timing and manner of the ballot.

The legal issues before the FWC centred on the interpretation of sections of the Fair Work Act that govern the conduct of protected action ballots. Key questions included whether the restrictions imposed by Paper Australia were reasonable and necessary to protect their business interests, and whether the union had a legitimate right to conduct the ballot under the provisions of the Act. The union's right to organise and inform employees about potential industrial action was weighed against Paper Australia's right to protect their business from undue disruption. The FWC had to balance these competing interests to determine an appropriate course of action.

The FWC found that the union's right to conduct a protected action ballot was paramount, provided it was done in a manner that did not cause unreasonable harm to the employer. The FWC acknowledged the importance of allowing employees to be informed and involved in decisions about potential industrial action, which is fundamental to the collective bargaining process. However, the FWC also recognised the need to mitigate any disruption to the employer's operations. After considering the evidence, the FWC concluded that the restrictions imposed by Paper Australia were not reasonable and ordered that the ballot could proceed, with some adjustments to minimise disruption. These adjustments included specifying the times and locations for the ballot to ensure it did not interfere excessively with the employer's operations.

The FWC ordered that the AMWU could conduct the protected action ballot, subject to the specified conditions designed to minimise disruption to Paper Australia's business operations. The union was required to provide Paper Australia with detailed information about the ballot's timing and location in advance to facilitate planning and adjustment of operations. The FWC's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of employees to organise and participate in industrial action with the employer's right to conduct their business efficiently.

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