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

[2014] FWC 6162

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
Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2014/1056)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[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 Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 4 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 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 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 Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought an order against Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, seeking to compel the company to allow employees to vote on industrial action. The dispute arose from the company's refusal to permit its employees to participate in a proposed ballot for protected industrial action. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over the matter as it involved a dispute that was industrial in nature and covered by the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the company had acted in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act when it refused to allow its employees to participate in the ballot. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the company's actions were consistent with the requirements for a lawful ballot under the Act and whether the company had provided sufficient reasons for its refusal. The court also considered whether the AMWU had fulfilled its obligations under the Act in proposing the ballot.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd had not provided adequate reasons for its refusal to allow the ballot to proceed. The court held that the company had not met its obligations under the Fair Work Act, which mandates that employers must not unreasonably refuse to allow employees to participate in a lawful ballot for protected industrial action. The court ordered the company to permit the ballot to proceed, ensuring that the employees could vote on the proposed industrial action. The AMWU was also directed to comply with the procedural requirements set out in the Act for conducting the ballot.

The court's decision was clear: Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd was ordered to allow the proposed ballot to proceed and to provide the necessary facilities for the AMWU to conduct the vote in accordance with the Fair Work Act. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the legal framework governing industrial action and the rights of employees to participate in lawful ballots.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established