| [2022] FWC 2164 |
| 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
Queensland Alumina Limited
(B2022/1221)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 15 AUGUST 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Queensland Alumina Limited
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 Queensland Alumina Limited (Respondent).
On 15 August 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent neither consented nor objected to 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 Edward John Couch of the Applicant declared on 11 August 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 PR744813.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR744814>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Queensland Alumina Limited [2022] FWC 2164
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2164
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Commission assessed the application based on the material provided, including the statutory declaration from Edward John Couch of the AMWU, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and the union's efforts to reach an agreement. The court had to decide if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met, specifically if the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and if the notification period for the proposed agreement had elapsed. The Commission's decision hinged on its assessment of the union's actions and the employer's response, if any.
The Fair Work Commission found that the AMWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and that the statutory notification period for the proposed agreement had elapsed. The Commission was satisfied with the union's efforts and the information provided, leading to its decision to grant the protected action ballot order. The court found that the union had met the requirements under the Fair Work Act, and the application was approved accordingly.
The Fair Work Commission issued an Order in PR744813, granting the AMWU's application for a protected action ballot. The decision allows the union to proceed with the ballot to potentially authorise protected action by the employees, such as strikes or stoppages, in the pursuit of their bargaining objectives. The court's decision was based on the evidence of good faith bargaining and the completion of the notification period, as stipulated in the Act.
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.