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

[2022] FWC 452

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

Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

(B2022/147)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 MARCH 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

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 Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 1 March 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object 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 declaration of Raoul Wainwright 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 PR738901.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application by the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd. The AMWU sought to conduct a ballot for potential industrial action due to ongoing disputes with the employer regarding certain terms and conditions of employment. The employer, Robert Bosch, did not object to the application, leading to the matter being decided on the basis of the provided documents without a formal hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the AMWU had met the requirements under section 437 of the Fair Work Act to hold a protected action ballot. This involved assessing whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer and whether the notification period stipulated in the Act had been met. The Commission considered the declaration provided by the AMWU, which detailed the steps taken in bargaining with the employer and the union’s efforts to reach an agreement.

The Deputy President concluded that the AMWU had fulfilled the necessary conditions for a protected action ballot. The declaration and other documentation provided demonstrated that the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the employer and had met the notification requirements set out in the Act. The Deputy President issued an order permitting the AMWU to proceed with the ballot as requested.

No additional orders were made by the Deputy President beyond allowing the ballot to proceed. This decision provided clarity on the procedural aspects of the industrial action process and affirmed the union's right to proceed with the ballot under the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established