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 Ltd
(B2020/374)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 JULY 2020

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

[1] 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 Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 20 July 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr J Gardner 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR721115.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, on behalf of its members employed by UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd, applied for authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot. The proposed ballot was related to industrial action that the union intended to take to secure better pay and conditions for its members. The employer opposed the application on the basis that the proposed industrial action would cause significant economic harm to the company and its customers.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed industrial action met the criteria for authorisation under section 246 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the proposed action was protected action within the meaning of that section, and whether the industrial action was warranted by the circumstances. The Commission also had to consider whether the proposed action was reasonable in all the circumstances, including its potential impact on the employer's business and the public.

The Commission found that the proposed industrial action was protected action within the meaning of the Act, and that the union had established that the action was warranted by the circumstances. The Commission noted that the employees were seeking to improve their pay and conditions, which was a legitimate objective. However, the Commission also found that the proposed industrial action was not reasonable in all the circumstances, due to its potential to cause significant economic harm to the employer and its customers. The Commission concluded that the potential harm outweighed the benefits of the proposed action, and therefore refused the application for authorisation. The Commission emphasised that its decision was based on the specific circumstances of this case, and did not set a precedent for other cases.

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