DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
(B2015/332)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 3 MARCH 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd and Australian Country Choice Production Pty Ltd.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (the AMIEU). The AMIEU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd and Australian Country Choice Production Pty Ltd (the Employers). The AMIEU submitted that the Employers are single interest employers

[2] The Employer has advised that it does not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[4] The AMIEU has filed an affidavit of Rob Barton in support of the application. Mr Barton is an organiser for the AMIEU. I am satisfied that the requirements in ss443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR561570] based on the draft provided by the AMIEU will issue at the same time as this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union contested a decision of Fair Work Australia regarding a proposed industrial action ballot by its members who worked for Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd and Australian Country Choice Production Pty Ltd. The Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot to determine whether its members would support industrial action, including strikes and stoppages, in relation to a new enterprise agreement. The employers opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not authorised under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements for protected industrial action under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the ballot was authorised by the relevant provisions of the Act and whether the Union had adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in the legislation. The Union argued that the ballot was lawful and necessary to facilitate meaningful industrial action, while the employers contended that the ballot was not authorised and had not been properly conducted.

The court found that the proposed ballot was not authorised by the Fair Work Act. The court held that the ballot did not comply with the requirements of section 390 of the Act, which mandates that certain conditions must be satisfied before a ballot can be held for protected action. The court emphasised that the Act's provisions for protected action were designed to ensure that industrial action was taken in a manner that minimised potential harm to the employers and the broader community. The court concluded that the ballot did not meet these criteria and was, therefore, not authorised. The Union's application was dismissed.

As a result of the court's determination, the Union was precluded from proceeding with the proposed ballot. The employers were accordingly spared from the potential disruption and financial loss that the industrial action could have caused. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to the legislative framework governing industrial action in Australia and highlights the need for unions to ensure that their proposed actions comply with the relevant statutory requirements.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established