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
Simplot Australia Pty Limited T/A Simplot Australia
(B2018/1094)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 27 NOVEMBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Simplot Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] 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 Simplot Australia Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 27 November 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr N Grealy 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 PR702676.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and Simplot Australia Pty Limited T/A Simplot Australia involved a dispute over a proposed ballot of employees to authorise industrial action. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter and was required to decide whether the ballot was lawful and if any action taken by the union was appropriate under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements necessary to conduct a lawful protected action ballot, and if the ballot was being used for a genuine purpose to resolve a workplace dispute. Specifically, the Commission examined whether the union had provided adequate notice to the employer and whether the ballot was related to a genuine workplace dispute.

In resolving these issues, the Commission considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the union's notice of the proposed ballot and the employer's objections to its validity. The Commission found that the union had not adequately notified the employer of the ballot as required by the Fair Work Act, and that the ballot was not being used for a genuine purpose to resolve a workplace dispute. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was not lawful and that the union's actions were not appropriate.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Simplot Australia Pty Limited T/A Simplot Australia was not to proceed, and that the union take steps to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act in future. The Commission also directed the parties to attempt to resolve their dispute through the processes set out in the Act.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Simplot Australia Pty Limited T/A Simplot Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established