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
v
UGL Rail Pty Ltd
(B2021/414)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 JUNE 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Rail 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 (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of UGL Rail Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 11 June 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 Raoul Wainwight 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 PR730667.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union brought a proceeding against UGL Rail Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission concerning a proposed protected action ballot of employees of UGL Rail. The dispute arose from a disagreement over the conduct of a ballot of UGL Rail employees regarding potential industrial action. The Union sought an order for the ballot to proceed, while UGL Rail opposed the ballot, arguing it was procedurally flawed.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the ballot complied with the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically section 399, and whether the ballot materials were misleading. The Commission needed to determine if the ballot was conducted in a manner that ensured fairness and transparency and if the materials provided were not misleading to the employees.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act. The Commission held that the ballot materials were misleading, which compromised the fairness of the process. Consequently, the Commission set aside the proposed ballot and ordered that a new ballot be conducted in accordance with the Act. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that all procedural requirements were met to maintain the integrity of the industrial action process.

The Fair Work Commission ordered UGL Rail to conduct a new ballot in compliance with the Fair Work Act, ensuring that the ballot materials were not misleading and that the process was fair and transparent. The Commission's decision underscored the necessity of adherence to legislative requirements in industrial action processes to uphold the rights of both employers and employees.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union v UGL Rail 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