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
RUAG Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/888)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 17 SEPTEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of RUAG 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 (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of RUAG Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 17 September 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR734066.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought an application against Ruag Australia Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot amongst Ruag Australia's employees, seeking to determine the employees' willingness to engage in industrial action. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed ballot met the legal criteria for authorisation under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot adhered to the statutory requirements and if the union's proposed industrial action was related to a workplace dispute, thereby warranting authorisation.

In evaluating the application, the Commission examined the union's evidence regarding the nature of the workplace dispute and the proposed form of industrial action. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to gauge employee support for potential industrial action due to unresolved workplace issues. Ruag Australia contested the union's claims, asserting that the proposed action was not related to a genuine workplace dispute. The Commission considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, including the definitions and conditions for protected action ballots, and assessed the evidence provided by both parties. The Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was related to a genuine workplace dispute and that the union had demonstrated a sufficient basis for seeking employee authorisation for potential industrial action.

The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the AMWU, authorising the proposed ballot. The Commission determined that the union had met the statutory requirements and that the proposed industrial action was related to a genuine workplace dispute. The Commission's decision was grounded in its assessment of the evidence presented and its application of the relevant legal criteria. The final orders included the authorisation of the proposed ballot, allowing the union to proceed with seeking employee authorisation for potential industrial action.

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Ruag 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