| [2022] FWC 567 |
| 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
WesTrac Pty Ltd
(B2022/201)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 15 MARCH 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of WesTrac 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 WesTrac Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 14 March 2022, 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 Timothy Jackson of the Applicant declared on 11 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 PR739297.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR739298>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v WesTrac Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 567
- Case
- [2022] FWC 567
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Fair Work Commission was required to consider whether the AMWU had satisfied the legislative criteria for a ballot order. In particular, the Commission needed to determine whether the AMWU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with WesTrac Pty Ltd and whether the proposed protected action was in relation to a workplace agreement. The Commission also had to consider whether the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. The AMWU submitted a statutory declaration by Timothy Jackson stating that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with WesTrac Pty Ltd and that the notification time had been met.
The Fair Work Commission accepted the AMWU's submission that it had genuinely tried to reach agreement with WesTrac Pty Ltd and that the notification time had been met. The Commission noted that WesTrac Pty Ltd did not oppose the application and that the AMWU had provided sufficient evidence to meet the legislative criteria. The Commission was satisfied that the AMWU had established a case for a ballot order and issued an order in accordance with the application. The AMWU was authorised to conduct a ballot of its members employed by WesTrac Pty Ltd to determine whether they would support protected industrial action.
In summary, the Fair Work Commission granted the AMWU's application for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of WesTrac Pty Ltd. The Commission found that the AMWU had genuinely tried to reach agreement with WesTrac Pty Ltd and that the notification time had been met. The AMWU was authorised to conduct a ballot of its members to determine whether they would support protected industrial action. An order was issued in PR739297.
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.