| [2018] FWC 2577 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Schindler Lifts Australia Pty. Ltd.
(B2018/348)
| Deputy President Gostencnik | SYDNEY, 9 MAY 2018 |
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. (Respondent).
On 8 May 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent neither consented nor objected to the application. The Respondent did not wish to be further heard.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr B Terzic 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 PR606910.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR606909>
- AGLC
- "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Schindler Lifts Australia Pty. Ltd [2018] FWC 2577
- Case
- [2018] FWC 2577
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the requirements for a protected action ballot as stipulated in the Fair Work Act. It assessed whether the ballot notice contained the necessary information, including the proposed action, the reasons for the action, and the potential impact on the employees and the employer. The court also considered whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements, such as providing a copy of the ballot notice to the employer and ensuring that the ballot was conducted in a fair and lawful manner. The company argued that the ballot notice lacked specific details about the proposed action and its implications, which the union countered by asserting that the notice provided sufficient information for the employees to make an informed decision.
In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the union's ballot notice did not adequately inform the employees of the proposed action and its potential impact. The court held that the notice failed to specify the nature of the industrial action, the reasons for the action, and the potential consequences for the employees and the employer. Consequently, the commission determined that the ballot did not meet the legal requirements for a protected action ballot. As a result, the union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed. The Fair Work Commission emphasised the importance of providing clear and comprehensive information in the ballot notice to ensure that employees can make informed decisions about supporting industrial action.
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.