| [2022] FWC 2355 |
| 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
Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd
(B2022/1318)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 5 SEPTEMBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Schindler Lifts 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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 2 September 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Stephen Isberg of the Applicant declared on 2 September 2022, 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 PR745493.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR745494>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 2355
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2355
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved whether the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate in good faith with the company, as required by section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a notification period for the proposed agreement was in place, as mandated by the Act. The union provided a statutory declaration from Stephen Isberg, outlining the steps taken in the negotiation process and affirming their commitment to reaching an agreement with the company.
The Vice President found that the union had indeed made genuine efforts to negotiate with the company and that the notification period for the proposed agreement was in place. Consequently, the court ruled that the requirements for a protected action ballot order had been satisfied. The decision was made without a hearing, as the company did not oppose the application.
The Fair Work Commission issued an order in PR745493, granting the union's application for a protected action ballot order. The decision was rendered on 5 September 2022.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.