“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union v Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2023] FWC 445

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

Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd

(B2023/146)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 22 FEBRUARY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd

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 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 21 February 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that 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 Bobby Ristevski of the Applicant declared on 20 February 2023, 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 PR751011.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was presented with an application by the "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (Applicant) for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Prysmian Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent). The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act). The Applicant sought permission to conduct a protected action ballot in relation to the employees. On 21 February 2023, the FWC was informed that the Respondent did not oppose the application. Consequently, the matter was decided on the papers without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the conditions set out in section 443(1) of the Act for granting a protected action ballot order were satisfied. The Applicant needed to demonstrate that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been given. The FWC assessed the material before it, including the statutory declaration of Bobby Ristevski of the Applicant, which outlined the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent.

The FWC was satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that the Applicant had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that a notification time had been provided. As such, the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act were met, leading to the decision to grant the protected action ballot order. The FWC issued an Order separately in PR751011.

This case highlights the process by which a union can apply for a protected action ballot order under the Fair Work Act, and the considerations the FWC must take into account in determining such applications. The decision underscores the importance of demonstrating genuine bargaining efforts and compliance with the notification requirements set out in the Act.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established