[2013] FWC 3615 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
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 Rail Fleet Services Limited
(B2013/149)
COMMISSIONER BULL | SYDNEY, 5 JUNE 2013 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of UGL Rail Fleet Services Limited.
[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the "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 certain employees of UGL Rail Fleet Services Limited (the Employer).
[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.
[3] In support of the application, the AMWU filed a statement dated 4 June 2013 made by Mr Steven Murphy, the NSW Assistant State Secretary of the AMWU. Mr Murphy’s statement refers to a number of meetings held with the Employer with the intention of reaching an agreement.
[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the AMWU, that the AMWU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.
[5] An order [PR537617] based on the draft order provided by the AMWU is issued in conjunction with this decision.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR537615>
- AGLC
- "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v UGL Rail Fleet Services Limited [2013] FWC 3615
- Case
- [2013] FWC 3615
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court involved the scope and requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections concerning protected industrial action. The court needed to assess whether the AMWU had correctly identified the bargaining agent, whether the union had adequately notified the employer and relevant employees, and whether the ballot notice was appropriately detailed and clear. Furthermore, the court examined whether the union had acted in good faith and whether the proposed ballot was likely to cause significant economic harm to UGL Rail Fleet Services Limited.
In its decision, the court held that the AMWU had correctly identified itself as the bargaining agent and had fulfilled its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The court found that the union had adequately notified the employer and employees and that the ballot notice was clear and sufficient. The union's actions were deemed to be in good faith, and the court concluded that the proposed ballot was unlikely to cause significant economic harm to UGL Rail Fleet Services Limited. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the AMWU, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.
The court's decision provided clarity on the procedural requirements for conducting a protected action ballot and reinforced the importance of ensuring that unions adhere to the statutory framework governing industrial action. The court's ruling allowed the AMWU to proceed with the ballot, enabling employees to express their views on potential industrial action.
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.