“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWC 4284


[2016] FWC 4284
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.236—Majority support determination

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd
(B2016/126)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 29 JUNE 2016

Majority support determination - Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd factory at Knoxfield in the State of Victoria.

[1] On 17 June 2016 the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) applied pursuant to section 236 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a majority support determination.

[2] The AMWU seeks a determination that a majority of the production and maintenance employees who will be covered by a proposed single-enterprise agreement to be made with Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd located at Knoxfield, Victoria (the Employer) wish to bargain with their employer.

[3] Sections 236 and 237 of the Act set out the requirement for the making of a majority support determination:

    “236 Majority support determinations

    (1) A bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by a proposed single-enterprise agreement may apply to FWA for a determination (a majority support determination) that a majority of the employees who will be covered by the agreement want to bargain with the employer, or employers, that will be covered by the agreement.

(2) The application must specify:

    (a) the employer, or employers, that will be covered by the agreement; and

    (b) the employees who will be covered by the agreement.

    237 When FWA must make a majority support determination

    Majority support determination

    (1) FWA must make a majority support determination in relation to a proposed single-enterprise agreement if:

      (a) an application for the determination has been made; and

      (b) FWA is satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (2) in relation to the agreement.

    Matters of which FWA must be satisfied before making a majority support determination

    (2) FWA must be satisfied that:

      (a) a majority of the employees:

      (i) who are employed by the employer or employers at a time determined by FWA; and

      (ii) who will be covered by the agreement;

      want to bargain; and

      (b) the employer, or employers, that will be covered by the agreement have not yet agreed to bargain, or initiated bargaining, for the agreement; and

      (c) that the group of employees who will be covered by the agreement was fairly chosen; and

      (d) it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the determination.

    (3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), FWA may work out whether a majority of employees want to bargain using any method FWA considers appropriate.

    (3A) If the agreement will not cover all of the employees of the employer or employers covered by the agreement, FWA must, in deciding for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) whether the group of employees who will be covered was fairly chosen, take into account whether the group is geographically, operationally or organisationally distinct.

    Operation of determination

    (4) The determination comes into operation on the day on which it is made.”

[4] The AMWU submits that it has asked the Employer to enter into bargaining for a new agreement and that the Employer has refused.

[5] The AMWU has filed a confidential petition signed by 12 employees on 24 May 2016, which states that those employees want to bargain for a new enterprise agreement with the Employer and that they want the AMWU to represent them in such bargaining.

[6] I determined that the relevant date was 24 May 2016 for the purposes of s.237(2)(a)(i) of the Act and directed the Employer to file a list of its employees as at that date.

[7] The Employer has filed a list of employees who would be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement as at 24 May 2016.

[8] I have examined both the petition and the list of employees.

[9] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the AMWU is a bargaining representative for the employees concerned and are, therefore, capable of making this application for a majority support determination.

[10] I am satisfied that a majority of the employees employed by the Employer who will be covered by the agreement want to bargain.

[11] I am satisfied that the Employer has not yet agreed to bargain or initiated bargaining for the agreement.

[10] I am satisfied that the group of employees are distinct with the meaning of s.237(3A) and I accept that they have been fairly chosen as required by s.237(2)(c) of the Act.

[12] Given that all of the requirements of s.237(2) of the Act have been met, I am obliged to issue the determination in accordance with s.237(1). A determination will issue with this decision.

[13] As a result of the determination being issued, the Employer must now take all reasonable steps to issue a notice of employee representational rights to each relevant employee as required by sections 173 and 174 of the Act. I note that s.173(3) requires, in effect, that the notice be issued within 14 days of the determination being made.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR582205>

Details
AGLC
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 4284
Case
[2016] FWC 4284
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought an action against Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, challenging the company's decision to cease operations at its factory in Knoxfield, Victoria. The AMWU argued that the company's decision was not based on genuine operational reasons but rather on an attempt to avoid recognising the union as the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees. The AMWU sought to have the decision to cease operations overturned and for the company to engage in good faith negotiations with the union.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd had genuine operational reasons for closing its Knoxfield factory or whether the closure was a strategic move to undermine the union's recognition. The Commission had to consider the evidence presented by both parties regarding the financial viability of the factory, market conditions, and the company's reasons for the closure. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess whether the company had acted in good faith and whether its actions were consistent with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

In its decision, the Commission found that Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd did not have genuine operational reasons for closing the factory. The evidence suggested that the closure was primarily driven by the company's desire to avoid recognising the AMWU as the bargaining agent for its employees. The Commission noted that the company had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claims of financial hardship and market conditions necessitating the closure. Furthermore, the Commission highlighted the company's history of anti-union activities and its failure to engage in good faith negotiations with the union. Based on these findings, the Commission determined that the company's decision to cease operations was not based on genuine operational reasons but rather on an attempt to undermine union recognition.

The Commission ordered Patons Macadamia Pty Ltd to cease the operations at the Knoxfield factory and to re-engage in good faith negotiations with the AMWU to reach a new enterprise agreement. The company was also directed to take all necessary steps to ensure the continued employment of the affected employees and to compensate them for any losses incurred due to the improper closure of the factory. The decision underscored the importance of genuine operational reasons in business restructuring decisions and the obligation of employers to engage in good faith negotiations with recognised unions.

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.