"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 2999

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
(B2013/116)

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 14 MAY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the AMWU filed a statement dated 10 May 2013 made by Mr Greg Cummings, an Official of the AMWU.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the AMWU, that the AMWU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR536614] based on the draft order provided by the AMWU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Schindler Lifts Australia Pty Ltd, a company involved in the manufacturing and servicing of lifts and escalators. The union aimed to organise this ballot to potentially facilitate industrial action, which Schindler opposed, arguing that the ballot was not related to a workplace dispute. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter, tasked with determining whether the proposed ballot was justified under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot related to a "workplace dispute" as defined in the Fair Work Act. The AMWU argued that the ballot was necessary to address potential workplace issues, while Schindler contended that the ballot was premature and not connected to any existing or anticipated dispute. The Commission had to assess whether the ballot was genuinely intended to resolve a workplace dispute, as permitted by the legislation, or if it was being used as a strategic tool unrelated to actual workplace grievances.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot was not genuinely related to a workplace dispute. The union's primary objective appeared to be organising its members rather than addressing specific workplace issues. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that protected action ballots genuinely relate to workplace disputes. Given the evidence presented, the Commission concluded that the ballot did not meet the statutory criteria and dismissed the application.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the AMWU's application to conduct the protected action ballot was refused. The Commission's ruling underscored the necessity for unions to ensure that any proposed industrial action is genuinely related to workplace disputes to comply with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established