“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Third Zeton Pty Ltd T/A Tieman Tankers Summary

[2022] FWC 2204

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

Third Zeton Pty Ltd T/A Tieman Tankers

(B2022/1248)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 19 AUGUST 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Third Zeton Pty Ltd T/A Tieman Tankers.

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 Third Zeton Pty Ltd T/A Tieman Tankers (the Respondent).

While the Respondent submitted the proposed protected action ballot order was neither required not necessary, it did not outline a statutory basis that would support the rejection of the application and nor did it request to be heard in addition to the correspondence it had sent to my Chambers outlining its position.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Andrew Bonello of the Applicant, setting out the steps taken by the Applicant in bargaining and the assertion 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR744958.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), seeking a protected action ballot order for employees of Third Zeton Pty Ltd, trading as Tieman Tankers. The AMWU sought to conduct a ballot among its members for protected industrial action due to ongoing disputes in bargaining with the employer. Third Zeton Pty Ltd, the employer, opposed the application, arguing it was neither required nor necessary. However, the employer did not provide a statutory basis for rejecting the application and did not request a hearing.

The legal issue before the Commission was whether the AMWU met the criteria under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the AMWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and if the statutory notification period had been observed. The AMWU argued that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement and had followed all necessary procedures. Third Zeton Pty Ltd did not provide sufficient evidence to counter these assertions and did not request an opportunity to be heard.

The Deputy President, considering the evidence and submissions, concluded that the AMWU had satisfied the requirements for holding a ballot. The AMWU provided a declaration from Mr Andrew Bonello, outlining the union's bargaining efforts and assertions of genuine attempts to reach an agreement. The employer failed to provide a legal basis for rejecting the application or request a hearing, and the evidence supported the union's claims. Therefore, the Commission determined that the notification period had been met, and the application should be granted. Consequently, the AMWU was permitted to proceed with the ballot for protected industrial action.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Third Zeton Pty Ltd T/A Tieman Tankers

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established