DECISION

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

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
(B2015/331)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 3 MARCH 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd T/A Australian Country Choice.

[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 T/A Australian Country Choice (Employer).

[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 [PR561572] 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 sought to conduct a ballot for protected action among employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd, trading as Australian Country Choice. The company applied to the Fair Work Commission for an injunction to prevent the ballot, alleging that the ballot notice contained misleading and deceptive statements. The dispute was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the ballot notice contained misleading or deceptive statements, and if the union had the right to conduct the ballot without an injunction. The court examined the wording of the ballot notice and the context in which it was issued, considering whether a reasonable person would be misled or deceived. Additionally, the court had to balance the union's right to organise and conduct a ballot against the company's rights to protect its commercial interests.

The court found that the ballot notice did not contain any misleading or deceptive statements. It held that the notice was clear and straightforward, and any potential confusion or misunderstanding could be attributed to the recipients' lack of understanding rather than the wording of the notice itself. The court emphasised that the union had the right to organise and conduct a ballot, and this right should not be unduly restricted. Consequently, the court dismissed the company's application for an injunction.

As the court found in favour of the union, it did not make any orders regarding the injunction sought by the company. The union was permitted to proceed with the proposed ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd.

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