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
The Mobile Shed Trust T/A Site Safe
(B2014/1127)

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 10 DECEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of The Mobile Shed Trust T/A Site Safe.

[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 The Mobile Shed Trust T/A Site Safe (the Respondent). The application was made on 3 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

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought an order for the Mobile Shed Trust T/A Site Safe to facilitate a proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The dispute centred around the employees' intention to take protected action as part of a broader campaign within the construction industry for improved wages and conditions. The Commission had to determine whether the employer's refusal to allow the ballot was lawful or if it amounted to an unfair labour practice.

The legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically sections concerning the right of employees to organise and participate in protected industrial action. The primary question was whether the employer's refusal to permit the ballot constituted an interference with the employees' right to organise. The Commission needed to balance the employer's rights under the Act with the employees' rights to engage in collective bargaining and protected action.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer's refusal to allow the proposed ballot was unreasonable and constituted an interference with the employees' right to organise. The Commission noted that the employer had not provided any legitimate reason for refusing the ballot and that such a refusal could potentially inhibit the employees' ability to effectively negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the Commission ordered the employer to facilitate the proposed ballot, ensuring that it was conducted in a fair and lawful manner. This decision underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between employer rights and employee rights to organise and engage in protected action, affirming the Commission's role in enforcing these rights.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v The Mobile Shed Trust T/A Site Safe

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established