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

[2022] FWC 2838

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

(B2022/1590)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

CANBERRA, 21 OCTOBER 2022

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

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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 21 October 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Nathan Everson of the Applicant declared on 20 October 2022, 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.

An Order has been separately issued in PR747105.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), represented by Nathan Everson, applied for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The application was against UGL Rail Services Pty Limited, with the aim of conducting a ballot for protected action related to certain employees. UGL Rail Services did not oppose the application, and the matter proceeded on the basis of written submissions. The union argued it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer and that the statutory notification period had been met. The Vice President of the Fair Work Commission, Catanzariti, determined the case without a hearing, considering the materials provided, including the union's statutory declaration.

The legal issues before the court were whether the union had genuinely been attempting to reach an agreement with the employer, whether the statutory notification period had been met, and if the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act had been satisfied. The union's application hinged on demonstrating that all necessary preconditions for a protected action ballot were met, and that there was a good faith effort to negotiate with the employer. The employer's lack of opposition suggested an implicit acceptance of these points, simplifying the court's task.

Upon reviewing the evidence, Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement and had fulfilled the statutory notification period. The court found that the union's actions aligned with the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act. The absence of opposition from UGL Rail Services further supported the union's claims. Therefore, the court granted the union's application for a protected action ballot order, ensuring that the employees could proceed with the ballot as planned.

The final orders of the court authorised the AMWU to conduct the protected action ballot as per the application, recognising the union's right to organise and negotiate under the Fair Work Act. The decision underscored the importance of good faith negotiations and adherence to statutory processes in industrial relations matters. The court's decision facilitated the union's ability to engage in protected action, thereby upholding the rights of the employees involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established