“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Pinnacle Bakery & Integrated Ingredients Pty Ltd

Case [2016] FWC 3001


[2016] FWC 3001
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
Pinnacle Bakery & Integrated Ingredients Pty Ltd
(B2016/87)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 12 MAY 2016

Majority Support Determination.

[1] On 9 May 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 Applicant seeks a determination that a majority of the employees engaged in mechanical and electrical maintenance positions who will be covered by a proposed single-enterprise agreement to be made with Pinnacle Bakery & Integrated Ingredients Pty Ltd at the Altona North factory (the Employer) want 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 it has asked the Employer to agree to enter into bargaining for a new agreement and the Employer has refused.

[5] The AMWU has filed a confidential petition signed by 8 employees dated between 18 and 19 March 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] The Employer has filed a list of employees who would be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement.

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

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

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

[10] 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.

[11] 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.

[12] 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, PR580305>

Details
AGLC
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Pinnacle Bakery & Integrated Ingredients Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 3001
Case
[2016] FWC 3001
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, also known as the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, brought a proceeding against Pinnacle Bakery & Integrated Ingredients Pty Ltd, seeking a determination of majority support for the union to be the sole bargaining agent for a group of employees. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The key legal issues revolved around whether the AMWU had the requisite majority support of the relevant employees to be recognised as the exclusive bargaining agent. The AMWU argued that it had collected sufficient signed authorisation forms from employees to demonstrate majority support. Pinnacle Bakery contested the validity and sufficiency of the authorisation forms, claiming numerous procedural flaws and arguing that the forms did not genuinely reflect the employees' wishes.

The Commission examined the authorisation forms submitted by the AMWU, assessing their compliance with the necessary legal requirements. It was determined that the AMWU had not met the threshold for majority support as several forms were found to be invalid due to various procedural deficiencies. These included incomplete or illegible information, signatures that did not match those on file, and forms that did not adhere to the prescribed format. Additionally, the Commission found that some employees who signed the authorisation forms had subsequently indicated they did not wish to be represented by the AMWU. As a result, the Commission ruled that the AMWU had not satisfied the legal criteria for majority support, and thus, it could not be recognised as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in question.

Given the findings, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the AMWU's application. The decision was made final and binding, with no orders made in favour of the AMWU. Pinnacle Bakery was relieved of the obligation to recognise the AMWU as the exclusive bargaining agent for the relevant employees. The Commission's decision emphasised the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements for majority support determinations to ensure the validity and legitimacy of the authorisation process.

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.