"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Production Services Network Pty Ltd T/A Wood Group PSN

[2018] FWC 1672

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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)

Production Services Network Pty Ltd T/A Wood Group PSN

(B2018/199)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 21 MARCH 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Production Services Network Pty Ltd T/A Wood Group PSN.

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 Production Services Network Pty Ltd T/A Wood Group PSN (Respondent).

On 21 March 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

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.

An order has been separately issued in PR601369.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to hold a protected action ballot of employees of Production Services Network Pty Ltd T/A Wood Group PSN (Wood Group). The Federal Court considered whether the AMWU had standing to conduct a protected action ballot and whether Wood Group had taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute before applying to the Court. The AMWU claimed that Wood Group had refused to provide necessary information for the ballot and that the Court should order Wood Group to provide this information. Wood Group argued that the AMWU did not have standing to hold the ballot and that the Court should dismiss the application.

The Court found that the AMWU did have standing to hold the ballot as it was the certified bargaining agent for the employees in question. The Court also found that Wood Group had not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, as it had failed to provide the necessary information to the AMWU. The Court ordered Wood Group to provide the necessary information to the AMWU and to allow the AMWU to conduct the ballot. The Court held that the AMWU had standing to hold the ballot and that Wood Group had not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute. The Court ordered Wood Group to provide the necessary information to the AMWU and to allow the AMWU to conduct the ballot. The Court further ordered that the AMWU was to provide Wood Group with a copy of the ballot paper and a list of the employees to be included in the ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established