| [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
<PR747106>
- AGLC
- “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
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2838
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
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.