“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 347

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

(B2022/86)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 18 FEBRUARY 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of UGL Rail Services Pty Limited (Respondent).

On 18 February 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Barry Terzic of the Applicant 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 PR738488.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought an action against UGL Rail Services Pty Limited in the Fair Work Commission, seeking an order to facilitate a ballot of employees to determine if they supported protected action. The employees were concerned about their employment conditions, including potential job losses and changes to their work arrangements. The matter was heard by Commissioner M.J. Bryant.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the employer had valid reasons to object to the proposed ballot. The employer argued that the ballot would cause unnecessary disruption and confusion among the employees. The AMWU, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was necessary to allow employees to express their views on the proposed changes to their employment conditions.

In delivering the decision, Commissioner Bryant found that the employer's concerns about disruption were not sufficient to outweigh the employees' right to vote on the proposed changes. The Commissioner noted that the proposed changes were significant and could have a substantial impact on the employees' working conditions. Therefore, the employees had a legitimate interest in being able to express their views on the proposed changes through a ballot. The Commission ordered the employer to facilitate the ballot as requested by the union.

As a result of the decision, the employer was required to allow the union to conduct a ballot of its employees to determine their views on the proposed changes to their employment conditions. The decision reinforced the importance of protecting the rights of employees to participate in the decision-making process about their working conditions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established