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
Simplot Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/1209)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 DECEMBER 2017

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 Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 21 December 2017 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 T Hale 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 PR599052.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought an application against Simplot Australia Pty Ltd, seeking approval for a proposed protected action ballot among the employees of the company. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter and had to determine whether the ballot could proceed under the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on whether the AMWU had followed the correct process for the ballot and whether the proposed industrial action was protected action as defined by the Act.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the union had adequately notified the employer of the proposed industrial action and whether the ballot notice was sufficiently detailed and clear. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the proposed action fell within the category of protected action as outlined in the Act, specifically whether the action was in pursuit of an industrial claim. The employer contested the validity of the ballot process, arguing that the notice did not comply with the statutory requirements.

The Commission found that the AMWU had adequately notified the employer and that the ballot notice was sufficiently clear and detailed. It held that the proposed action was in pursuit of an industrial claim and therefore constituted protected action. The Commission also noted that the employer had not demonstrated any prejudice or harm that would warrant the setting aside of the ballot. Consequently, the Commission approved the ballot and ruled in favour of the AMWU.

The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot among the employees of Simplot Australia Pty Ltd could proceed as per the ballot notice provided by the AMWU. The employer was directed to facilitate the ballot in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The decision underscored the importance of proper notification and adherence to statutory requirements when conducting protected action ballots.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established