“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v UGL Rail Services Pty Limited Summary

[2013] FWC 130

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
UGL Rail Services Pty Limited
(B2013/8)

Manufacturing and associated industries
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 8 JANUARY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) employed by UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (UGL).

[2] Mr David Ainger, HR Manager for UGL, advised my chambers by email on 7 January 2013 that the company does not oppose this application.

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

[4] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, representing employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited, initiated proceedings in the Fair Work Commission against UGL Rail Services Pty Limited. The union sought approval for a proposed protected action ballot concerning potential industrial action by the employees. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which is the body responsible for handling such employment-related disputes in Australia. The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed industrial action was protected action as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009. The union argued that the proposed industrial action was a genuine dispute related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment, and therefore qualified as protected action. UGL Rail Services Pty Limited, on the other hand, contended that the proposed action did not meet the statutory requirements for protected action and thus should not be allowed.

The Fair Work Commission carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Commission examined whether the proposed industrial action was in relation to the employees' terms and conditions of employment or the employees' workplace. The Commission also considered the requirements for a protected action ballot as outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed industrial action was not genuinely related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment or their workplace. Consequently, the proposed ballot for protected action was not approved. The Commission's decision was based on the lack of a genuine dispute concerning the employees' terms and conditions of employment or their workplace, and therefore, the proposed industrial action did not meet the criteria for protected action.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established