The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia T/A Professionals Australia v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd T/A Ford Australia

[2022] FWC 1884

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia T/A Professionals Australia
v

Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd T/A Ford Australia

(B2022/701)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 19 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Limited T/A Ford Australia.

This is an application by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia T/A Professionals Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd T/A Ford Australia (the Respondent).

On 18 July 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 Ms Melissa Cadwell 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 PR743907.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia T/A Professionals Australia (Applicant) sought a protected action ballot order from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) against Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd T/A Ford Australia (Respondent) under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). The Applicant sought to ballot its members, who were employees of the Respondent, in relation to proposed protected action. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the Deputy President Clancy decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issue before the FWC was whether the Applicant had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot order under s.437 of the Act. The Applicant had to demonstrate that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Applicant provided a declaration from Ms Melissa Cadwell, who attested to the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and the Applicant’s genuine attempts to reach an agreement.

The Deputy President Clancy was satisfied that the Applicant had met the requirements for a protected action ballot order under s.437 of the Act. The Applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate its genuine attempts to reach an agreement with the Respondent, and the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Deputy President Clancy issued an order for a protected action ballot in PR743907.

The FWC granted the Applicant’s application for a protected action ballot order. The order allows the Applicant to ballot its members, who are employees of the Respondent, in relation to the proposed agreement. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the Deputy President Clancy determined the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. The Applicant had satisfied the requirements for a protected action ballot order under s.437 of the Act, and an order was issued in PR743907.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established