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
PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited
(B2017/474)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 14 JUNE 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PPG Industries Australia 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) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 14 June 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 W Simmons 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 PR593715.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, also known as the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, brought proceedings against PPG Industries Australia Pty Limited. The union sought a declaration that a proposed protected action ballot of employees of PPG Industries Australia Limited was lawful. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the union's proposed protected action ballot was compliant with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the ballot notice provided sufficient detail to the employer, as required by section 398 of the Act. The union argued that the notice was adequate, while the employer contended that it lacked the necessary particulars.

The Federal Court held that the union's proposed ballot notice was insufficient as it did not provide the employer with adequate information about the nature and proposed timing of the protected action. The notice was found to be vague and did not comply with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court declared that the proposed ballot was not lawful. The employer was not required to facilitate the ballot as it did not meet the legislative criteria.

The Federal Court's decision resulted in the union's proposed ballot being deemed unlawful. The union was not granted the declaration it sought, and the employer was relieved from any obligation to facilitate the ballot. The court's ruling underscored the importance of providing specific details in a ballot notice to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established