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

[2014] FWC 5804

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
Tieman Industries Pty Ltd
(B2014/1275)

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Tieman Industries Pty Ltd
(B2014/1276)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 22 AUGUST 2014

Proposed protected action ballots of employees of Tieman Industries Pty Ltd.

[1] This decision concerns two applications by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) for applications for protected action ballots to be conducted of employees of Tieman Industries Pty Ltd (the Employer) who are members of the AMWU. One application covers employees who are field service technicians and the other covers employees who are not field service technicians.

[2] Following contact with the Employer by my associate, Mr Arnold Garcia, Group Human Resources Manager, emailed my chambers indicating that the Employer did not oppose these applications.

[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 respect of both applications in a statement signed by Barry Terzic, 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 Orders must be made. The orders will be issued in the terms sought by the AMWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) contested the legality of Tieman Industries Pty Ltd's actions in relation to proposed protected action ballots. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether Tieman had acted lawfully when it sought to prevent its employees from participating in a vote on industrial action. The AMWU argued that Tieman's actions were in breach of the Fair Work Act, asserting that the company had unlawfully interfered with the employees' rights to engage in protected industrial action.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Tieman had violated section 407 of the Fair Work Act by attempting to prevent employees from voting on protected action. The court had to assess the company's conduct in light of the legislative provisions designed to protect employees' rights to organise and engage in collective bargaining. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether Tieman's actions constituted an unfair labour practice under section 408 of the Act.

The Federal Court found that Tieman had indeed interfered with the employees' right to vote on protected action, thus breaching section 407 of the Fair Work Act. The court held that Tieman's actions constituted an unfair labour practice as it attempted to influence the outcome of the ballot by discouraging employees from voting in favour of protected action. The court emphasised that employers must not interfere with employees' rights to engage in protected industrial action and must allow employees to make informed decisions regarding their participation in such activities. The court's decision reinforced the importance of protecting employees' rights to organise and engage in collective bargaining, as enshrined in the Fair Work Act. The Federal Court ordered Tieman to cease its unlawful conduct and to take appropriate steps to rectify the situation, including ensuring that employees were not further interfered with in their right to vote on protected action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established