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

[2022] FWC 2932

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

Pentair Flow Technologies Pacific Pty Ltd

(B2022/1653)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 4 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Pentair Flow Technologies Pacific Pty Ltd

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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Pentair Flow Technologies Pacific Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 3 November 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Helen Sourlas of the Applicant declared on 2 November 2022, 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.

An Order has been separately issued in PR747625.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Pentair Flow Technologies Pacific Pty Ltd. The AMWU sought to conduct a ballot for protected action in relation to certain employees of the Respondent company, Pentair Flow Technologies Pacific Pty Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows for a protected action ballot order when a union has been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer but has been unable to do so. The Respondent did not oppose the application, leading to the matter being determined on the papers without the need for a hearing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had genuinely been attempting to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the requirements for a protected action ballot were met. The court was required to determine whether the union had taken the necessary steps to bargain with the employer and whether the notification period had been met. The union's statutory declaration, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and its efforts to reach an agreement, was considered. The court also needed to ensure that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had genuinely been attempting to reach an agreement with the employer and that the requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. The court was satisfied that the union had taken the necessary steps in bargaining with the employer and that the notification period had been met. The court relied on the statutory declaration provided by the union and the absence of opposition from the employer. As a result, the application for a protected action ballot order was approved. An order was issued separately in PR747625, authorising the union to conduct the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established