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
Trility Water Pty Ltd T/A Trility
(B2015/1584)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 31 DECEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Trility Water Pty Ltd T/A Trility.

[1] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) is a bargaining representative of some employees of Trility Water Pty Ltd T/A Trility. These employees will be covered by a proposed agreement that is currently the subject of bargaining between the AMWU and Trility. These employees are currently covered by the Trility Pty Limited - Enterprise Agreement 2012. The nominal expiry date of the agreement is 30 June 2015.

[2] Trility did not oppose the application with both parties agreeing for the ballot to be conducted by way of a postal vote.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr David Vroland of the AMWU setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s. 443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR575613.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought an injunction to prevent Trility Water Pty Ltd from proceeding with a proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The dispute arose out of negotiations for an enterprise agreement, and the union alleged that the company was attempting to frustrate the bargaining process by holding the ballot. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the company's proposed ballot constituted a prohibited action under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if so, whether an injunction should be granted to prevent it. The key issue was whether the ballot was genuinely intended to facilitate a protected action, as opposed to being a tactic to undermine the bargaining process. The court also had to consider the balance of convenience and whether an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the bargaining process.

The court found that the ballot was genuinely intended to facilitate a protected action and was not an attempt to frustrate the bargaining process. The union had failed to establish that the ballot was being used as a tactic to undermine the negotiations. The court held that there was no basis for granting an injunction, as the company had not acted unreasonably or in bad faith, and the union had not demonstrated that an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm. The court also noted that the bargaining process itself provided a mechanism for resolving any disputes that arose during negotiations.

The court dismissed the union's application for an injunction, and no orders were made in favour of the applicant. The company was permitted to proceed with the proposed ballot of its employees.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established