| [2020] FWC 673 |
| 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
SEM Fire and Rescue Pty Ltd
(B2020/69)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 10 FEBRUARY 2020 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sem Fire and Rescue Pty Ltd.
[1] This is an application by “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 SEM Fire and Rescue Pty Ltd (Respondent).
[2] On 10 February 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr C Spindler 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.
[5] An order has been separately issued in PR716525.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR716524>
- AGLC
- "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Sem Fire and Rescue Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 673
- Case
- [2020] FWC 673
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the AMWU had complied with the statutory requirements for conducting a ballot of employees regarding protected industrial action. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had provided the employer with the necessary information and materials to enable the employees to make an informed decision, as stipulated in section 360 of the Fair Work Act. The court also needed to consider whether the timing and manner of the ballot adhered to the provisions of the Act and relevant regulations.
The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the adequacy of the union's communication and the procedural fairness of the proposed ballot. The AMWU argued that it had fulfilled its obligations under the Act by providing the employer with the required information, including the ballot papers, explanatory booklets, and a letter detailing the proposed action. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the union had not adequately notified it of the ballot, particularly in relation to the timing and content of the materials provided. After careful consideration, the court found that the union had indeed complied with the statutory requirements and upheld the validity of the proposed ballot.
As a result, the court dismissed the employer's application to prevent the ballot and ordered that the AMWU could proceed with the ballot as planned, subject to the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The decision affirmed the importance of procedural fairness and proper notification in the context of industrial action ballots.
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.