Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v Hirino Pty Ltd T/A Gundagai Meat Processors

[2016] FWC 2516

[2016] FWC 2516

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
Hirino Pty Ltd T/A Gundagai Meat Processors
(B2016/48)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BULL SYDNEY, 20 APRIL 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Hirino Pty Ltd and Gundabone Pty Ltd.

[1] On 6 April 2016, on application by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU), I issued a protected action ballot order [PR578717] for employees of Hirino Pty Ltd T/A Gundagai Meat Processors. That order specified that the date by which voting was to close be no later than 20 working days after 6 April 2016. The order specified that the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was the relevant agent authorised to conduct the ballot.

[2] On 19 April 2016, Ms Fernandez of the AMIEU made an application to vary the protected action ballot order issued on 6 April 2016. The AMIEU sought to include employees of Gundabone Pty Ltd within the protected action ballot order. The variation sought by the AMIEU was set out as follows;

“That all employees that are employed in or in connection with meat processing at the respondents Gundagai plant and who will be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement and for whom the AMIEU is their bargaining representative irrespective of whether the employer is Hirino Pty Ltd and or Gunderbone (sic) Pty Ltd”

[3] The AMIEU outlined its grounds for seeking the variation to the order in the following manner;

“The AMIEU in its application for a protected action ballot order always intended to include of all of the eligible employees as per 2.5 of this application.

The AMIEU at the time of making the protected action ballot application was not aware that Gundagai Meat Processors were employing workers in the boning room under the business name of Gunderbone (sic) Pty Ltd”

[4] On 19 April 2016, I wrote to Ms Carter, Human Resource Manager of the Gundagai Meat Processors, seeking her views on the proposed variation. Ms Carter informed the Commission that she did not object to the proposed variation and outlined that Gundagai Meat Processors had identified the issue and attempted to raise it with the Australian Electoral Commission. Ms Carter pointed out that the current single enterprise agreement Gundagai Meat Processors Enterprise Agreement 2012 named both Hirino Pty Ltd and Gundabone Pty Ltd as being covered by that agreement.

[5] Pursuant to s.172(2) of the Act it provides that an employer, or 2 or more employers that are single interest employers, may make an enterprise agreement (a single-enterprise agreement). In particular, s.172(5) of the Act states that two or more employers are single interest employers if:

(a) The employers are engaged in a joint venture or common enterprise; or

(b) The employers are related bodies corporate; or

(c) The employers are specified in a single interest employer authorisation that is in operation in relation to the proposed enterprise agreement concerned.

[6] On 19 April 2016 I again wrote to Ms Carter asking her to explain as to how both Hirino Pty Ltd and Gundabone Pty Ltd qualified as a single-interest employer pursuant to s.172 of the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) (the Act).

[7] On 20 April 2016, Ms Carter advised that both Hirino Pty Ltd and Gundabone Pty Ltd were engaged in a joint venture or common enterprise, and therefore came within the ambit of s.172(5)(a) of the Act.

[8] Pursuant to s.447(4) of the Act the protected action ballot order [PR578717] issued on 6 April 2016 is varied by the protected action ballot order [PR579293] to include employees employed by Gundabone Pty Ltd.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR579292>