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

[2014] FWC 2619

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
Renold Australia Pty Ltd
(B2014/67)

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 17 APRIL 2014

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

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Renold Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 10 April 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AMWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by Ian Thomas, an official of AMWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order in the terms consented to by the parties.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a declaration that the employer, Renold Australia Pty Ltd, was required to facilitate a ballot of its employees concerning proposed protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether the employer was obligated to allow the union to conduct a ballot of its members to ascertain their support for proposed industrial action. The employer argued that the union's request for a ballot was not in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically that the union had not provided sufficient detail about the proposed action.

The Commission examined the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act and considered the relevant case law. It held that the union's ballot request was not valid as it did not contain the necessary details about the proposed action, including the specific nature of the action, the duration, and the intended impact on the employer's operations. The Commission determined that without this information, the employer could not properly assess the potential effects of the proposed action and therefore could not be expected to facilitate the ballot. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application, finding that the employer was not required to allow the proposed ballot.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established