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
Saint-Gobain Abrasives Pty Ltd
(B2021/495)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 7 JULY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Saint-Gobain Abrasives 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 Saint-Gobain Abrasives Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 6 July 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 Paris Lettau 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 PR731408.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and Saint-Gobain Abrasives Pty Ltd. The AMWU sought approval for a proposed protected action ballot of the employees, which was intended to gauge support for potential industrial action. The dispute centred around the validity and process of the ballot, with Saint-Gobain challenging the AMWU's authority to conduct it.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the AMWU had the requisite authorisation to call for a protected action ballot and whether the proposed ballot complied with the relevant statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court examined the union's standing as a certified bargaining agent, the conditions under which a ballot could be called, and whether the ballot notice provided adequate information to employees.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission held that the AMWU had the authority to conduct the ballot as it was a certified bargaining agent. The court found that the ballot notice complied with the statutory requirements, providing sufficient information to employees. The Commission also noted that the AMWU had followed the appropriate procedures, and the ballot was conducted in a manner that was fair and reasonable. Consequently, the court approved the proposed ballot, allowing the AMWU to proceed with the industrial action process as intended.

The final orders of the Commission were that the AMWU was authorised to conduct the protected action ballot as proposed, and that the ballot was to proceed in accordance with the terms outlined in the notice. The decision affirmed the AMWU's right to organise and conduct the ballot, while ensuring that the process was conducted fairly and in compliance with the law.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Saint-Gobain Abrasives 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