| [2019] FWC 3076 |
| 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
TW Power Services Pty Ltd
(B2019/360)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 6 MAY 2019 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of TW Power Services Pty Ltd.
[1] 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 TW Power Services Pty Ltd T/A TW Power Services (Respondent).
[2] On 3 May 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
[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 Raoul Wainwright of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and 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.
[5] An order has been separately issued in PR707982.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR707981>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v TW Power Services Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 3076
- Case
- [2019] FWC 3076
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the AMWU had satisfied the prerequisites under the Fair Work Act for holding a ballot to determine employee support for protected action. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the union had correctly identified the bargaining representatives, whether it had provided the employer with the necessary details about the proposed ballot, and whether the employer had unreasonably refused to allow the ballot to proceed. The AMWU argued that the employer's refusal to facilitate the ballot was unjustified and an interference with the union's right to organise and advocate for its members.
The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the AMWU, ruling that the union had indeed fulfilled the necessary conditions for the ballot to proceed. The employer's objections were dismissed as unfounded, and the Commission ordered TW Power Services to allow the ballot to occur. The court held that the employer had not demonstrated any reasonable grounds to refuse the ballot, and the union's right to organise and advocate was thus upheld. Consequently, the Commission mandated that TW Power Services facilitate the ballot as requested by the AMWU.
The Fair Work Commission ordered TW Power Services Pty Ltd to facilitate the proposed ballot of its employees to determine their support for protected action, as requested by the AMWU. The employer was instructed to provide the necessary assistance and resources to enable the union to conduct the ballot within the stipulated timeframe. The decision reinforced the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements for protected action ballots and underscored the role of the Fair Work Commission in ensuring compliance with these provisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.