"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) [2026] FWC 2244

1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.236 - Application for a majority support determination "Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) (B2026/543) COMMISSIONER CONNOLLY MELBOURNE, 17 JUNE 2026 Application for a majority support determination – application granted. [1] On 14 May 2026, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) applied for a majority support determination under s.236 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The AMWU contends that a majority of relevant employees who would be covered by a proposed enterprise agreement want to bargain with their employer, Boortmalt Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent). [2] The agreement is proposed to cover employees of the Respondent who are employed at the Respondent’s Bibra Lake and Forrestfield sites in Western Australia other than those employed as Plant Manager and Regional FSQR Manager. [3] Amongst the material attached in support of the AMWU’s application was a copy of an email sent on the 27th of February 2026 from Ms Madeleine Sarich-Prince to Ms Sharon Kawol, a human resources representative of the Respondent, that said: “On Monday 20 October 2025, and 7 November 2025 Boortmalt confirmed that they did not wish to bargain, despite a majority of employees having signed a majority support petition. …we write to you as the incoming HR rep to seek reconsideration of your position.” [4] Also attached were copies of two AMWU branded Majority Support Petitions – one for the Forrestfield site, the other for Bibra Lake. The petitions indicated those who had signed the document had done so freely, without pressure and were in support of bargaining with their employer for an Enterprise Agreement to cover their employment. The petitions included a total of 21 signatures of employees from both sites. [5] The AMWU’s material also included two further emails from the Respondent’s Managing Director dated 6th of March and Regional HR and Communications Manager APAC dated 30th April indicating the Respondent was not supportive of commencing formal enterprise bargaining at the time. [2026] FWC 2244 DECISION -- 1 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 2244 2 [6] On receipt of the application, I directed the Respondent to provide my Chambers with a list (redacted as necessary) of employees who would be covered by the proposed Agreement to enable the Commission to determine if there is a majority, along with any other submissions or material relevant to the Application. The Applicant was also invited to provide any additional information as considered necessary. [7] The Applicant provided a witness statement of Ms Sarich-Prince, setting out the process undertaken to gather the 21 signatures undertaken by herself and AMWU members working for the Respondent. Also provided was a witness statement from Ian Rule, a maintenance employee of the Respondent at its Forrestfield site. Mr Rule’s attested to the steps he and a co- worker undertook to collect the signatures of his fellow employees between 25 March and 8th of April 2026. Mr Rule’s evidence is that the petition is an accurate record of the signatures of employees, that he witnessed maintenance employees signing the petition and that he believed everyone signing the petition had done so being aware they were expressing their support for enterprise bargaining to commence. On the 5th of June 2026, Mr Alan Lindsay also provided a witness statement indicating that on the previous day he undertook to send an email to all employees of the Respondent’s Forrestfield location seeking their confirmation they had signed the petitions provided to the Commission without duress and supporting the commencement of enterprise bargaining. Mr Lindsay provided emails from 15 employees of the Respondent’s Forrestfield location confirming this to be the case. [8] The Respondent also provided a list of its employees who would be covered by the proposed agreement. The employers list included 27 names. All 21 names on the AMWU petition appeared on the list of names provided by the Respondent and all 15 names appeared on the email records provided by Mr Lindsay. The Respondent also provided short written submissions setting out their objections to any order being made because the petition provided by the AWWU should not satisfy the Commission a majority of employees support the commencement of bargaining for an enterprise Agreement and expressing a concern the employees have been pressured into signing the petition provided. They suggested a secret ballot may be necessary and also submitted the scope of the Agreement proposed by the AMWU was not fairly chosen, being too broad and not operationally or organisationally distinct. In the alternative, the Respondent submitted any collective agreement should exclude all employees in primarily administrative, managerial, supervisory or key decision-making roles. [9] Considering the material provided to the Commission, I sought the views of the parties on there being any objections to the Commission determining the application on the papers, without the need for a hearing. The Applicant concurred with this approach. The Respondent made no further submissions and did not otherwise object to the application being determined on the papers. Accordingly, I have determined to consider the application on the material provided to the Commission as follows. Statutory Framework [10] Section 237 of the Act provides that the FWC must make a majority support determination in relation to a proposed single enterprise agreement if an application has been -- 2 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 2244 3 made under s.236, and where the Commission is satisfied of the matters in s.237(2). The section provides: “237 When the FWC must make a majority support determination Majority support determination (1) The FWC must make a majority support determination in relation to a proposed single enterprise agreement if: (a) an application for the determination has been made; and (b) the FWC is satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (2) in relation to the agreement. Matters of which the FWC must be satisfied before making a majority support determination. (2) The FWC must be satisfied that: (a) a majority of the employees: (i) who are employed by the employer or employers at a time to be determined by the FWC; and (ii) who will be covered by the agreement; want to bargain; and (b) the employer, or employers, that will be covered by the agreement have not yet agreed to bargain, or initiated bargaining, for the agreement; and (c) that the group of employees who will be covered by the agreement was fairly chosen; and (d) it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the determination.” [11] In relation to s.237(2)(a), the Commission may determine whether a majority of employees want to bargain by using any method it considers appropriate (per s.237(3)). [12] If the proposed agreement will not cover all the employees of the employer or employers covered by the agreement, the Commission must, in deciding whether the group of employees who will be covered was fairly chosen, take into account whether the group is ‘geographically, operationally or organisationally distinct’ (per s.237(3A)). [13] The material before the Commission includes the Form F30 – Application for a majority support determination filed by the AMWU. Considering this material, I am satisfised the -- 3 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 2244 4 AMWU is a bargaining representative of the employees in question and is entitled under its registered rules to represent their industrial interests. The application specifies the employer and employees who will be covered by the Agreement, and I am satisfied it meets the requirements of s.236 of the Act. [14] Attached to its application, the AMWU has presented a signed petition of a majority of employees seeking to be covered by the Agreement. I have considered the Respondent’s submissions that the petition should not satisfy the Commission because of their concerns it was produced under duress. This submission is not supported by any evidence. It is contrary to the consistent evidence of the AWWU and Mr Rule. On this basis, I consider the petition to be an appropriate and accurate mechanism to record the views of the majority of employees of the Respondent. The emails Mr Lindsay provided reinforce this conclusion. [15] Material provided from the employer to the Commission confirms that of the 21 signatories to the AMWU petition all 21 are amongst the 27 employees who their records indicate would be covered by the Agreement. Therefore, I am satisfied that the requirements of s.237(2)(a) have been met. [16] With respect to the requirement in s.237(2)(b), it is not in contest and I am satisfied that the Respondent has not yet agreed to bargain with the AMWU or otherwise initiated bargaining for the Agreement. [17] With respect to the requirement in s.237(2)(c), the group of employees chosen are the all the employees of the Respondent at its Bibra Lake and Forrestfield sites in Western Australia other than those employed as Plant Manager and Regional FSQR Manager. The AMWU submits there to be 10 distinct classifications of work at the Respondent’s Bibra Lake and Forrestfield sites that are distinct from the regional FSQR and Plant Manager roles. They otherwise submit, the employees chosen are those working for the Respondent at its two geographic locations in Western Australia. The Respondent submits the inclusion of all managerial, administrative and decision-making roles does not reflect the operational or organisational needs of the business. The premise of this submission is that having employees who are accountable to each other covered by the same agreement will lead to workplace conflict. I do not accept these submissions. Rather, I am persuaded by the submissions of the AWMU that the group of employees chosen to be covered by the Agreement has been fairly chosen and represents those employees of the Respondent at its work sites in Western Australia, excluding senior management. On this basis, I am satisfied the group is geographically and organisationally distinct and has been fairly chosen. [18] It is not suggested, there being majority support, it is unreasonable to make the order sought. I am satisfied that this is the case, and that it is reasonable in all the circumstance of this case to make the order as required by s.237(2)(d). [19] The only remaining issue to determine is the date for the purposes of s.237(2)(a)(i). The Full Bench in Kantfield Pty Ltd v AWU [2016] FWCFB 8372 (Kantfield) at [35] said as follows: “The power to apply a time-based limitation is confined to section 237(2)(a)(i) and not section 237(2)(a) more broadly. That is, the power to apply a point-in-time limitation in section 237(2)(a)(i) is directed to fixing the time at which the FWC is to determine -- 4 of 5 -- [2026] FWC 2244 5 who are the persons employed only. Therefore, it does not confer a broader power to ‘fix” historical or future points in time for other aspects of 237.” [20] It is also clear from Kantfield at [37] that the decision should be made based on the most current material available to the Commission. In this instance, that material is contained in the AMWU’s petition as submitted and attached to the Form F30, that the last signature was collected on 7 April 2026. [21] On this basis, I determine the date for the purposes of s.237(2)(a)(i) to be 7 April 2026, being the last day on which an employee’s signature was placed on the AMWU’s petition.1 Conclusion [22] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.237(2) have been met, and having determined the date for the purposes of s.237(2)(a)(i) is 7 April 2026, I am required by s.237(1) to make a majority support determination. The determination is issued separately in [PR811089]. COMMISSIONER Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR811088> 1 See AWU v Woodside Energy Ltd [2023] FWC 249 at [345]. -- 5 of 5 --