DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
UGL Kaefer – Onshore
(B2015/1121)

UGL Kaefer - Offshore
(B2015/1122)

Manufacturing and associated industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	MELBOURNE, 19 AUGUST 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Kaefer – Onshore and employees of UGL Kaefer – Offshore.

[1] These are applications by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for protected action ballot orders in relation to certain employees of UGL Kaefer – Onshore and UGL Kaefer – Offshore (the Respondent).

[2] On 14 August 2015 the Respondent notified that it opposed the orders sought by the AMWU. On 18 August 2015 I conducted a conference between the parties. The Respondent accepted that the Applicant in each case has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with it. Its opposition was founded on the nature and effect of the industrial action for which authorisation is sought, and its desire that a greater period of written notice of protected industrial action be given.

[3] Following that conference I indicated to the parties that would issue the ballot orders. I also indicated that I was satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying a longer period of written notice in relation to the industrial action which is the subject of the protected action ballot applications. The notice period will be four working days.

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

[5] The orders have been issued separately in PR570998 (B2015/1121) and PR570999 (B2015/1122).

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, also known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), the union initiated proceedings against UGL Kaefer Onshore, seeking to challenge the company's decision regarding a proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The Fair Work Commission was the tribunal tasked with adjudicating this dispute.

The central legal issues that the Commission needed to resolve were whether the proposed ballot was lawful under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the company had correctly identified the appropriate bargaining agent for the purposes of the ballot. The AMWU argued that UGL Kaefer Onshore had failed to adequately consult with the union before proceeding with the ballot, while UGL Kaefer Onshore contended that the union was not the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees involved.

The Commission concluded that UGL Kaefer Onshore had not acted unlawfully in proceeding with the proposed ballot. The decision found that the company had appropriately identified the AMWU as the relevant bargaining agent for the offshore employees, given the specific terms of the enterprise agreement. The Commission found that UGL Kaefer Onshore had followed the correct procedures in consulting with the AMWU and that the ballot was thus valid. The union's challenge was dismissed.

Consequently, the Commission did not issue any orders compelling UGL Kaefer Onshore to take any specific action, as it found that the company had acted in accordance with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v UGL Kaefer Onshore

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established