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
Sydney Trains
(B2021/968)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 12 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Sydney Trains

[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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Sydney Trains (Respondent).

[2] On 11 October 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 Robyn Fortescue of the Applicant declared on 7 October 2021, 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 PR734798.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case between the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and Sydney Trains, the dispute centred around the union's proposed ballot for protected action involving employees of Sydney Trains. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with deciding whether the ballot should proceed and if it complied with the relevant legislative provisions. The Commission was required to consider whether the proposed industrial action was protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically whether it was action in pursuit of an industrial claim.

The Commission's decision was grounded in the interpretation of the Fair Work Act and the relevant sections concerning protected action. It examined whether the proposed ballot met the criteria for protected action, including the requirement that the industrial action was in pursuit of an industrial claim and whether it was protected action as defined by the Act. The Commission noted the importance of the ballot being conducted in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Commission determined that the proposed ballot did not meet the requirements for protected action as it failed to specify a particular industrial claim or objective, thereby rendering the ballot invalid.

The Fair Work Commission ruled that the proposed ballot did not comply with the legislative requirements for protected action. As a result, the Commission prohibited the union from proceeding with the ballot. The decision was based on the absence of a specific industrial claim or objective within the ballot, which was essential for the action to be considered protected. The Commission's ruling effectively halted the proposed industrial action, ensuring compliance with the legislative framework governing such activities.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established