“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v VIP Steel Packaging Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 9439

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
VIP Steel Packaging Pty Ltd
(B2013/1435)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 2 DECEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of VIP Steel Packaging Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application for a protected action ballot of members of “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) employed by VIP Steel Packaging Pty Limited.

[2] This application was filed by the AMWU on 28 November 2013. The AMWU has filed a statutory declaration of Mr Barry Terzic in support of this application. I am satisfied that the AMWU has demonstrated that it has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer.

[3] Mr Mark Kaufmann, for the employer, advised my chambers by email that the company does not oppose the order.

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

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU has issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and VIP Steel Packaging Pty Ltd reached the court, where the AMWU sought authorisation for a protected action ballot to be held among the employees of VIP Steel. The AMWU argued that the proposed industrial action was necessary to address certain workplace grievances and to negotiate improved working conditions and terms with the company. VIP Steel, on the other hand, opposed the ballot, asserting that the proposed action was not genuinely related to workplace issues and that the AMWU's actions were in breach of existing agreements.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the AMWU had satisfied the necessary criteria to conduct a protected action ballot and whether the proposed industrial action was genuinely related to workplace issues as required by the relevant industrial laws. The court had to consider the nature of the proposed action, the motives behind it, and whether the AMWU had followed the appropriate procedures and complied with legal requirements for such actions.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the AMWU's justification for the proposed action and VIP Steel's arguments against it. The court found that the AMWU had not adequately demonstrated that the proposed industrial action was genuinely related to workplace issues. The court was not convinced that the proposed action was necessary for negotiating improved conditions, as the AMWU had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Consequently, the court ruled against the AMWU and denied the authorisation for the protected action ballot. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that industrial actions are genuinely related to workplace issues and that unions adhere to legal procedures when seeking to conduct such actions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established