“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v Summary

[2022] FWC 202

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

Suez Water Pty Ltd(B2022/37)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 1 FEBRUARY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Suez Water 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Suez Water Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 1 February 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Stuart Gordon 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR737916.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), made an application to the Fair Work Commission under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Suez Water Pty Ltd. The AMWU sought to ballot its members regarding potential protected industrial action due to ongoing disputes with Suez Water regarding the terms of employment. Suez Water did not oppose the AMWU’s application, resulting in the matter being determined on the basis of the provided documentation without a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the AMWU had met the necessary requirements to conduct a protected action ballot. This involved examining whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Suez Water and whether the notification period specified in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been satisfied. The Deputy President assessed the declaration provided by Mr Stuart Gordon of the AMWU, which outlined the union's bargaining efforts and its commitment to reaching an agreement with Suez Water.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Deputy President found that the AMWU had genuinely tried to negotiate with Suez Water and that the union had fulfilled the statutory notification requirements. Consequently, the Deputy President concluded that the AMWU was entitled to proceed with the ballot of its members regarding potential protected action. This decision was made without the necessity of a hearing, given Suez Water’s lack of objection.

In light of the findings, the Deputy President issued an order allowing the AMWU to proceed with the ballot. This order was recorded separately under the reference PR737916. The decision underscores the importance of good faith bargaining and adherence to statutory requirements in industrial relations matters.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established