| [2022] FWC 765 |
| 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
(B2022/275)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 6 APRIL 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
On 6 April 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 Mr Andrew Bonello 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 PR740062.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR740061>
- 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 765
- Case
- [2022] FWC 765
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred on whether the AMWU had satisfied the conditions set out in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act for holding a protected action ballot. This includes demonstrating that there had been a notification time in relation to a proposed agreement and proving that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employer. The court had to assess the evidence provided by the AMWU, including the declaration of Mr Andrew Bonello, to determine if these conditions were met.
Deputy President Clancy decided the matter based on the evidence presented in the documents, as the employer did not object to the application. The court found that the AMWU had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the conditions for a protected action ballot. The declaration of Mr Andrew Bonello detailed the steps taken by the union in bargaining with the employer and affirmed that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement. Therefore, the Deputy President granted the AMWU's application for a protected action ballot order.
The court issued a separate order in PR740062, formalising the decision to allow the AMWU to proceed with the protected action ballot for the employees of Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd.
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.