| [2022] FWC 662 |
| 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
Ventia Australia Pty Ltd and Downer Utilities Pty Ltd
(B2022/216)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 25 MARCH 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ventia Australia Pty Ltd and Downer Utilities Pty Ltd
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 Ventia Australia Pty Ltd and Downer Utilities Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 22 March 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 Stephen Isberg of the Applicant declared on 21 March 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 PR739679.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR739680>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Ventia Australia Pty Ltd and Downer Utilities Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 662
- Case
- [2022] FWC 662
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the Commission needed to resolve was whether the AMWU had met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. This involved assessing whether the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the respondents and if the notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The evidence provided by the AMWU, including the statutory declaration by Stephen Isberg, was central to this determination.
The Commission found that the AMWU had fulfilled the necessary conditions for a protected action ballot. It was satisfied that the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate with the respondents and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been appropriately observed. Consequently, the Commission granted the AMWU's application for the ballot order. A separate order was issued to formalise the decision, ensuring that the union could proceed with the ballot as planned.
The outcome of this case underscores the Fair Work Commission's role in facilitating fair work practices by ensuring that unions can seek protected action when negotiations have reached an impasse, provided all statutory requirements are met. This decision reinforces the importance of the legislative framework in protecting the rights of both employers and employees during industrial disputes.
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.