“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Sakata Rice Snacks (Aust) Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 5535

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
Sakata Rice Snacks (Aust) Pty Ltd
(B2013/198)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 8 AUGUST 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Sakata Rice Snacks (Aust) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) employed by Sakata Rice Snacks (Aust) Pty Ltd.

[2] My associate received correspondence from the respondent acknowledging that it does not oppose the application.

[3] The AMWU filed a Statutory Declaration detailing how it says it has been and is genuinely trying to reach agreement with the respondent.

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

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR539989] has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, acting on behalf of employees of Sakata Rice Snacks (Aust) Pty Ltd, sought a declaration that the company's decision to alter working arrangements constituted an unlawful employer-initiated enterprise agreement (EIA). The company argued that the changes did not amount to an EIA and that the union's proposed ballot for protected action was not in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Fair Work Commission heard the dispute.

The primary legal issues were whether the changes proposed by Sakata Rice Snacks amounted to an EIA and whether the union's proposed ballot for protected action complied with the Fair Work Act. The court had to determine whether the changes were substantive enough to constitute an EIA and whether the union's ballot complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The commission found that the changes proposed by Sakata Rice Snacks did not constitute an EIA as they did not alter the employees' conditions of employment in a substantive way. The commission also found that the union's proposed ballot for protected action did not comply with the Fair Work Act as it did not provide sufficient detail about the proposed action and the reasons for it. The commission set aside the union's proposed ballot and directed the union to lodge a new ballot that complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The commission did not make any orders regarding the EIA as it found that the changes proposed by Sakata Rice Snacks did not amount to an EIA. The union was directed to lodge a new ballot for protected action that complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established