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 Pty Ltd
(B2016/29)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 MARCH 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Rail Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of UGL Rail Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 2 March 2016 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 Mr D Vroland of the Applicant 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 separately issued in PR577636.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, also known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), against UGL Rail Pty Ltd, the dispute centred on a proposed industrial action ballot among the employees of UGL Rail. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the AMWU sought to conduct a ballot among its members who were employed by UGL Rail to gauge their support for potential protected industrial action. The legal issues before the court were whether the union was entitled to conduct the ballot and if the proposed ballot complied with the necessary legal requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court was required to determine whether the AMWU had satisfied the statutory preconditions for protected action, specifically focusing on the procedural fairness and the notice requirements as outlined in the Act. The primary contention was whether the union had provided adequate notice of the proposed ballot to UGL Rail, as stipulated by the legislation, and if the ballot complied with the prescribed format. The union argued that it had followed the necessary procedures and provided sufficient notice, while UGL Rail contested the adequacy and timeliness of the notice given.

In its decision, the court examined the procedural steps taken by the union and the compliance with the legislative requirements. The court found that the union had not provided the required 10 days' written notice of the proposed protected action to UGL Rail, as mandated by the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the court ruled that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the statutory preconditions for protected industrial action, thereby invalidating the ballot. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the notice requirements to ensure that employers have sufficient time to respond and to mitigate any potential industrial disputes.

The final orders of the court were that the AMWU's proposed protected action ballot was not valid due to the failure to provide the required notice to UGL Rail, and the ballot could not proceed as it did not comply with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act. The court's decision underscored the necessity for unions to strictly adhere to procedural requirements to ensure that their actions are lawful and enforceable.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established