“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v RMD Industries Pty Ltd T/A Downee

[2018] FWC 7085

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)

RMD Industries Pty Ltd T/A Downee

(B2018/1064)

Deputy President MASSON

MELBOURNE, 20 NOVEMBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of RMD Industries Pty Ltd T/A Downee.

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 RMD Industries Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 19 November 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 B Terzic 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 PR702438.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought a case against RMD Industries Pty Ltd T/A Downee before the Fair Work Commission. The union sought authorisation for a proposed protected action ballot of employees, intending to gauge support for potential industrial action. The primary dispute centred around the procedural validity of the ballot, which was a critical step in determining whether the employees could lawfully proceed with protected industrial action. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with evaluating whether the union's proposed ballot met the requisite legal standards.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the union had adhered to the statutory obligations in proposing the ballot, including the necessity to provide specific details about the proposed industrial action and the requisite notice to the employer. Additionally, the court examined whether the ballot was conducted in accordance with the Fair Work (Protected Action) Regulations 2013, which mandate certain procedural steps to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.

The Fair Work Commission, in its decision, meticulously reviewed the procedural steps taken by the union. It found that the union had failed to provide the employer with the specific details of the proposed industrial action as required by the Fair Work Act. This omission was significant because it prevented the employer from adequately responding to the proposed action. The Commission concluded that the procedural shortcomings rendered the ballot invalid. Consequently, the union's application for authorisation of the proposed ballot was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established