| [2021] FWC 5400 |
| 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
Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited T/A Wilson Transformer Company
(B2021/751)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 31 AUGUST 2021 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited T/A Wilson Transformer Company.
[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited T/A Wilson Transformer Company (Respondent).
[2] On 31 August 2021, 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 Joshua 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 PR733364.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR733362>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Wilson Transformer Company Proprietary Limited T/A Wilson Transformer Company [2021] FWC 5400
- Case
- [2021] FWC 5400
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot was genuinely aimed at resolving a genuine industrial dispute. The Commission had to assess the evidence presented by both parties to determine the purpose of the ballot and whether it met the criteria set out in section 368 of the Fair Work Act. The company argued that the ballot was not genuinely aimed at resolving a genuine dispute, as the union had already made a series of demands that the company considered unreasonable and had not engaged in good-faith negotiations.
In its decision, the Commission found that the union's ballot was genuinely aimed at resolving a genuine industrial dispute. The Commission accepted that the union had made a series of demands, but considered that the company's refusal to engage in negotiations and its insistence on certain changes in the workplace were unreasonable. The Commission also noted that the union had provided evidence of the employees' concerns and the issues they wanted to address through the potential protected action. The Commission concluded that the union's actions were in line with the requirements of the Fair Work Act and dismissed the company's objection to the ballot.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the company's objection to the AMWU's proposed protected action ballot, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot as planned. The Commission found that the union's actions were genuinely aimed at resolving a genuine industrial dispute, and that the company's objections were not well-founded. The decision reinforces the importance of good-faith negotiations and the right of employees to take protected action in certain circumstances.
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.