"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union v CB Admin Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 290

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union v CB Admin Pty Ltd (B2026/59) DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON ADELAIDE, 2 FEBURARY 2026 Proposed protected action ballot of employees of CB Admin 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 (AMWU or Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of CB Admin Pty Ltd (CB or Employer). I observe that the application was amended1 by leave of the Commission to reflect the correct name of the Employer when subsequently clarified by Wayne Parnell, the General Manager, Plant Hire & Maintenance for “Cleary Bros”. [2] On 30 January 2026, the Commission was advised that the Employer, objected to the Application on the grounds that an agreement is “very close on all matters”. In substance the employer contented that the Application was premature and that it is unnecessary given that bargaining was continuing. The AMWU has maintained its application and relies upon the statutory declaration of Gavin Budd, an Organiser, provided in conformity with the Act. [3] On 2 February 2026, the Commission was further advised by the Employer that: • “Clearly Bros [Employer] is currently awaiting the AMWU response to a very fair and reasonable ‘without prejudice’ offer to finalise the terms of the proposed EA, which was tabled during the fourth negotiation meeting on 29 January 2026.” • “… the Fifth negotiation meeting is scheduled for 5 February 2026 at 3:30pm.” [4] Neither part sought a hearing. In the circumstances and noting the nature of the objection raised, I have accepted the positions and stated circumstances of the parties at face value and decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing. [5] Section 437 of the Act provides as follows: [2026] FWC 290 DECISION -- 1 of 7 -- [2026] FWC 290 2 “437 Application for a protected action ballot order Who may apply for a protected action ballot order (1) A bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement, or 2 or more such bargaining representatives (acting jointly), may apply to the FWC for an order (a protected action ballot order) requiring a protected action ballot to be conducted to determine whether employees wish to engage in particular protected industrial action for the agreement. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the proposed enterprise agreement is: a) a greenfields agreement; or b) a cooperative workplace agreement. (2A) Subsection (1) does not apply unless there has been a notification time in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement. Note: For notification time, see subsection 173(2). Protected industrial action cannot be taken until after bargaining has commenced (including where the scope of the proposed enterprise agreement is the only matter in dispute). Matters to be specified in application (3) The application must specify: (a) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted; and (b) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action; and (c) the name of the person or entity that the applicant wishes to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot. Note: The protected action ballot agent for the ballot must be an eligible protected action ballot agent unless there are exceptional circumstances: see section 444. (5) A group of employees specified under paragraph (3)(a) is taken to include only employees who: (a) will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement; and (b) either: (i) are represented by a bargaining representative who is an applicant for the protected action ballot order; or -- 2 of 7 -- [2026] FWC 290 3 (ii) are bargaining representatives for themselves but are members of an employee organisation that is an applicant for the protected action ballot order. Documents to accompany the application (6) The application must be accompanied by any documents and other information prescribed by the regulations.” [6] Section 443 of the Act relevantly provides: “443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order (1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if: (a) an application has been made under section 437; and (b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. (2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1). (3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following: (a) the name of each applicant for the order; (b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted; (c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes; (d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action; (e) the person or entity that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1A), is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot; (f) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot. (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.” -- 3 of 7 -- [2026] FWC 290 4 [7] I observe for completeness that there are other statutory requirements for a PABO to be issued that are not in issue in this matter. Further, most of the matters raised in the provisions above are also not in dispute. [8] The AMWU must demonstrate that it has met (and where relevant continues to meet) all of these requirements. There is no dispute that the AMWU was entitled to bring the application, and a valid application has been made under s.437 of the Act. The substantive requirement that must be met is whether the AMWU has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer – s.443(1)(b) of the Act. [9] The approach required as to whether a party has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement has previously been summarised, in effect, by the Full Bench in Esso Australia Pty Ltd v “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU); Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; The Australian Workers’ Union.2 This includes, as relevant to this matter: “[18] While there is a relationship between the good faith bargaining requirements in s.228 of the Act and the concept of genuinely trying to reach an agreement, it would be wrong to conflate these terms. A party may not meet a particular good faith bargaining requirement but may nevertheless be genuinely trying to reach an agreement.”3 “[57] The concept of genuinely trying to reach an agreement involves a finding of fact applied by reference to the circumstances of the particular negotiations. It is not useful to formulate any alternative test or criteria for applying the statutory test because it is the words of s.443 which must be applied. In the course of examining all of the circumstances it may be relevant to consider related matters but ultimately the test in s.443 must be applied.4 The Commission should have regard to all of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”5 “[53] It is not appropriate or possible to establish rigid rules for the required point of negotiations that must be reached. All the relevant circumstances must be assessed to establish whether the applicant has met the test or not. This will frequently involve considering the extent of progress in negotiations and the steps taken in order to try and reach an agreement.”6 “[54] The reference to the Commission being ‘satisfied’ means that whether or not the requisite circumstance exists is a discretionary decision. Section 443(1)(b) directs attention to the conduct of the applicant union. The expression ‘has been, and is’, imports temporal considerations. The Commission’s attention is thereby directed to the applicant’s prior conduct at the time the application for a protected action ballot order is determined. Given the context the reference to ‘an agreement’ is plainly a reference to an enterprise agreement within the meaning of Part 2-4 of the Act.”7 [10] The expression “genuinely trying” has also been taken to be concerned with the genuineness or authenticity of the trying; that is, the efforts, by the applicant to reach the stated goal, being an enterprise agreement that meets the requirements of the Act.8 -- 4 of 7 -- [2026] FWC 290 5 [11] The substance of the Employer’s position is that the Application is premature and that it is unnecessary given that bargaining was continuing with the anticipation that a new enterprise agreement may be made shortly. The notion that an application for a PABO has been brought prematurely is one that a relatively recent Full Bench of the Commission in Kuiper Australia Pty Ltd v The Australian Workers’ Union9 (Kuiper) has considered and relevantly stated: “[31] That is not to suggest that whether a bargaining representative has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement involves an assessment of whether the bargaining representative is “unduly rushing” to take protected industrial action. The Act expressly deals with when protected industrial action can be taken. Application for a protected action ballot order must not be made unless there has been a “notification time” (s 437(2A)) and cannot be made earlier than 30 days before the nominal expiry of an existing enterprise agreement (s 438(1)). Protected industrial action must not actually be organised or engaged in before the nominal expiry date of an existing agreement (s 413(6)) or if a suspension or termination order, Ministerial declaration or intractable bargaining declaration is in operation (s 413(7)). Otherwise, the Act does not dictate when a bargaining representative should seek a protected action ballot order. [32] The Act contemplates that an application for a protected action ballot order can be made as soon as there has been a “notification time” so long as that date is not more than 30 days before the nominal expiry of an existing agreement. The requirement, in s 443(1)(b), that an applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement does not impose a further de facto time constraint on when protected industrial action can be taken by prescribing that bargaining must have developed to some minimum stage or level. The Act does not countenance such an approach. [34] An allegation that an application for a protected action ballot order is premature does not, of itself, provide a basis for concluding that the applicant for the order has not been, or is not, genuinely trying to reach agreement. The Act envisages that protected action might be taken early in bargaining. The Commission must simply consider whether, in light of the circumstances operating at the time of its decision, the applicant has been, and is, genuinely seeking agreement. The reference to “premature applications” in Total Marine Services has been doubted or not followed in subsequent decisions, particularly JJ Richards (FWAFB), Farstad Shipping and Esso Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union [2015] FWCFB 210; (2015) 247 IR 5. Kuiper did not suggest we should follow the reasoning in the fourth and fifth sentences of paragraph [32] of Total Marine Services.” [12] In this case, the evidence before the Commission supports the notion that the AMWU has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer. It has also meaningfully engaged and continues to engage with the bargaining process with the genuine objective of reaching an agreement. It also remains committed to negotiating a new enterprise agreement with the Employer and its actions confirm that it is doing so genuinely. The making of a PABO application is not of itself, contrary to that objective. [13] I would accept that further progress towards making an enterprise agreement in this matter may well be possible without the intervention of a PABO. However, I observe that there -- 5 of 7 -- [2026] FWC 290 6 is no requirement that the bargaining be exhausted or that there be an impasse before an application of this kind is made. Further, a PABO application does not stop the bargaining and the good faith bargaining obligations remain. Indeed, in this case, the parties have a further bargaining meeting scheduled, which should proceed, and the Commission will also order the attendance of the parties at a s.448A conference before the ballot concludes, which is dealt with below. [14] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Bubb setting out the steps taken by the AMWU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with CB, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. [15] The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). [16] For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 16 March 2026.10 This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act. [17] An Order has been separately issued in PR796273. [18] This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR796272> 1 The application originally cited Cleary Bros (Bombo) Pty Ltd and later Bombo Operations Pty Ltd. -- 6 of 7 -- [2026] FWC 290 7 2 [2015] FWCFB 210. 3 Ibid at [18]. 4 Ibid at [34] - drawing upon Total Marine Services Pty Ltd v The Maritime Union of Australia [2009] FWAFB 368 (Total Marine). 5 Ibid at [57]. 6 Ibid at [35] - but qualifying a further statement made in Total Marine. 7 Ibid at [54]. 8 J.J. Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia [2010] FWAFB 9963 at [89] and Kuiper at [26] to [30]. 9 [2024] FWCFB 378. 10 This is, in effect, 30 working days from the making of the Order and was the period sought in the application. -- 7 of 7 --