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

[2014] FWC 6585

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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
Taurean Door Systems
(B2014/1064)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 19 SEPTEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Taurean Door Systems.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Taurean Door Systems (the Respondent). The application was made on 17 September 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AMWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by David Vroland, an Official of the AMWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union and Taurean Door Systems. The union sought to conduct a ballot of employees to gauge support for potential industrial action, which the employer contested. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, an independent statutory tribunal with jurisdiction over employment relations disputes in Australia. The union argued that the proposed ballot was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009, entitling them to protection from adverse action by the employer. Taurean Door Systems contended that the ballot was not related to a genuine dispute in the workplace and was therefore not protected.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot constituted protected action. This required consideration of whether the ballot was related to a genuine dispute in the workplace and whether the union had followed the proper procedures. The Commission examined the nature of the proposed ballot and the circumstances under which it was to be held, including whether it related to existing workplace issues or was being used as a general exploratory tool. It also considered the union's motives and the relevance of the ballot to any genuine workplace dispute.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot was not related to a genuine dispute in the workplace. The ballot was being used as a general exploratory tool rather than in response to specific workplace issues. The Commission held that the union had not demonstrated a sufficient nexus between the ballot and any existing workplace dispute, and therefore, the ballot did not constitute protected action under the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the employer was not required to facilitate the ballot and could take appropriate steps to prevent it.

The Commission's decision was upheld, and the union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that protected industrial action is genuinely related to workplace disputes and that unions adhere to proper procedures when seeking to conduct such action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established