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
Surfside Buslines Pty. Ltd.
(B2019/106)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 FEBRUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Surfside Buslines 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 Surfside Buslines Pty. Ltd. (Respondent).

[2] On 13 February 2019, 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 B Thanas 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 PR704892.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to conduct a ballot of its members employed by Surfside Buslines Pty. Ltd., a company operating bus services in Sydney. The AMWU aimed to ascertain its members' willingness to engage in protected action, including a potential strike, due to ongoing industrial disputes. Surfside Buslines opposed the ballot, leading to a legal challenge in the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The central issue before the FWC was whether the AMWU's proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to determine if the ballot notice provided adequate information to the employees and if it was a genuine attempt to resolve the industrial dispute.

The FWC considered the provisions of the Fair Work Act that mandate the details to be included in a ballot notice, such as the nature of the industrial action, the reasons for it, and the potential consequences. The AMWU argued that their notice sufficiently informed the employees, while Surfside Buslines contended that the notice lacked critical details and was not a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute. The FWC examined the content of the ballot notice and assessed whether it met the legislative requirements and if it was a reasonable step in the circumstances. The court also considered the broader context of the industrial dispute, including the efforts made by both parties to reach a resolution.

After careful consideration, the FWC determined that the AMWU's ballot notice did not fully comply with the statutory requirements. The notice was found to be deficient in several respects, including the lack of specific information about the potential industrial action and its consequences. The FWC concluded that the notice was not a genuine attempt to resolve the industrial dispute, as it failed to provide employees with the necessary information to make an informed decision. Consequently, the FWC rejected the AMWU's application to conduct the ballot. The FWC's decision was based on the strict interpretation of the statutory provisions and the need for compliance with the legislative framework governing industrial action.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Surfside Buslines 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