DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australian Workers’ Union
v
Metromix Pty Ltd
(B2021/465)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 24 JUNE 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Metromix Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Australian 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 Metromix Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 24 June 2021, 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 Ben Horan of the Applicant declared on 23 June 2021, 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 PR731029.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union initiated proceedings against Metromix Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, seeking to prevent the company from implementing a proposed restructure that would reduce the workforce. The Union argued that the restructure would necessitate redundancies and therefore required a protected action ballot to be conducted under the Fair Work Act 2009. Metromix Pty Ltd contested the Union's claim, asserting that the proposed changes did not amount to a reduction in the workforce and thus did not necessitate a ballot.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed changes by Metromix Pty Ltd constituted a "reduction in the workforce" within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009, thereby requiring a protected action ballot. The court needed to determine if the changes amounted to redundancies and if the Union was the appropriate party to conduct the ballot. The court considered the definition of "reduction in the workforce," the implications of the proposed changes, and whether the Union had standing to call for a ballot.

The Federal Circuit Court found that the proposed changes by Metromix Pty Ltd did not amount to a reduction in the workforce as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009. The court reasoned that the changes were not intended to reduce the overall number of employees but rather to reorganise the existing workforce within the company. Consequently, the court held that a protected action ballot was not required. Additionally, the court confirmed that the Union had standing to bring the proceeding, but since the primary issue was resolved in favour of Metromix Pty Ltd, the Union's application was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders as the dismissal of the Union's application resulted in no further action being required. The Union's claim was dismissed with no orders for costs.

The Australian Workers' Union v Metromix 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