Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd and Australian Country Choice Production Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 7987

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd and Australian Country Choice Production Pty Ltd
(B2014/1559)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 11 NOVEMBER 2014

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

[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 (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 (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] On the basis of the submissions of the AMIEU and a statement signed by Mr Brian Crawford, Branch Secretary of 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 [PR557597] 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

In this case, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union initiated proceedings against Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd and Australian Country Choice Production Pty Ltd, seeking approval to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of the two companies. The dispute arose from the companies' refusal to permit the ballot, which was a pivotal step in the union's efforts to initiate potential industrial action. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the union argued that the companies' actions violated the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court was tasked with determining whether the companies' refusal to allow the ballot was lawful under the Act and if the union had the right to conduct the ballot as a means to initiate protected action. The primary issue was whether the companies had valid grounds to deny the union's request, considering the statutory requirements for such actions. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of the companies' actions on the employees' rights and the union's capacity to represent its members effectively.

The court found that the companies had not provided adequate justification for denying the union's request to conduct the ballot. The decision emphasised the importance of protecting the employees' rights to engage in collective bargaining and to be represented by their chosen union. The court held that the companies' refusal to allow the ballot was unjustified and in breach of the statutory provisions. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union, granting permission for the ballot to proceed. The companies were ordered to facilitate the ballot as requested by the union, ensuring that employees could exercise their rights without interference.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established