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
Renold Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/67)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 18 JANUARY 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Renold Australia Pty Ltd.

[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 Renold Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 18 January 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 Ms K Johnston 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 PR589497.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought an injunction against Renold Australia Pty Ltd to prevent the company from implementing changes to the employees' work arrangements, including their shift patterns, without first holding a ballot of the employees to gauge their support for protected action. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) heard the matter and ultimately found in favour of the AMWU, issuing an injunction against Renold. The company appealed to the Federal Court of Australia.

The central issue before the court was whether the proposed changes constituted an adverse action as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and if so, whether the AMWU was entitled to a ballot of the employees before the changes could be implemented. The court had to consider the meaning of "adverse action" and whether the proposed changes to the employees' work arrangements constituted such action. The court also needed to determine if the AMWU was entitled to a ballot under section 390 of the Fair Work Act, which allows a registered organisation to request a ballot for protected action in certain circumstances.

In its decision, the court held that the proposed changes to the employees' work arrangements did not constitute adverse action. The court found that the changes were not intended to diminish the employees' conditions or rights, and that the changes were in line with the company's operational needs. The court also held that the AMWU was not entitled to a ballot because the proposed changes did not constitute protected action. The court found that the changes did not involve any form of industrial action or stoppage of work, and that the employees' ability to take protected action was not being restricted. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the injunction issued by the FWC was set aside.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and set aside the injunction issued by the Fair Work Commission. The court found that the proposed changes to the employees' work arrangements did not constitute adverse action and that the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union was not entitled to a ballot of the employees before the changes could be implemented. The decision highlights the importance of understanding the legal definitions and requirements for protected action and the role of registered organisations in industrial disputes.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established