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

[2014] FWC 7436

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
Visy Packaging Pty Ltd
(B2014/1085)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 20 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Visy Packaging Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Visy Packaging Pty Ltd at its site in Shepparton (the Respondent). The application was made on 16 October 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The AMWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by John Wieladek, an Official of the AMWU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Visy Packaging Pty Ltd, a paper manufacturing company. The primary dispute between the parties was the AMWU's proposed ballot which was to take place at the workplace of Visy Packaging. Visy Packaging opposed the ballot and sought an injunction to prevent the union from conducting the ballot, arguing that it would cause significant disruption to their business operations. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot by the AMWU constituted an unlawful interference with Visy Packaging's business operations, and if so, whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the ballot. The court had to balance the AMWU's right to organise and conduct a ballot against Visy Packaging's rights to conduct its business without undue interference. The court also had to consider the potential impact of the ballot on Visy Packaging's operations and whether the union's proposed methods were reasonable and necessary.

The court found that the proposed ballot, if conducted, would cause significant disruption to Visy Packaging's business operations, particularly in terms of the loss of productivity and potential safety risks. The court also noted that the union had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed methods for conducting the ballot were necessary or reasonable. As a result, the court granted the injunction sought by Visy Packaging, preventing the AMWU from conducting the ballot at the workplace. The court emphasised that the injunction was not intended to interfere with the union's right to organise, but rather to protect Visy Packaging's rights to conduct its business without undue interference.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established