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
Wood Australia Pty Ltd
(B2020/279)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 21 MAY 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Wood Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Wood Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 21 May 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Scott Stanford of the AMWU declared on 20 May 2020, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR719555.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

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 Wood Australia Pty Ltd, which led to a legal dispute in the Fair Work Commission. The AMWU, representing the employees, sought authorisation to conduct a ballot to determine the employees' support for protected action. Wood Australia Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, arguing that it would cause significant operational disruption. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed ballot met the criteria for authorisation under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The legal issues before the Commission involved interpreting the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 concerning protected action ballots. Specifically, the Commission needed to assess whether the ballot was reasonably likely to result in protected action, whether it was in the public interest, and whether the ballot would cause significant operational disruption to the employer. The Commission also had to consider whether the proposed ballot was conducted in good faith and whether the union had taken reasonable steps to avoid or minimise any potential disruption.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot was reasonably likely to result in protected action, which was in the public interest. It was also determined that the ballot was conducted in good faith and that the union had taken reasonable steps to avoid or minimise any potential disruption. However, the Commission concluded that the ballot would cause significant operational disruption to Wood Australia Pty Ltd, which outweighed the potential benefits of the ballot. As a result, the Commission refused to authorise the ballot.

The Commission's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the potential impact of the ballot on the employer's operations. The Commission emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in protected action with the rights of employers to conduct their business without undue interference. The Commission's decision highlights the need for unions and employers to engage in good-faith negotiations and to consider the potential impact of proposed industrial action on all parties involved.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established