DECISION

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

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
JBS Australia Pty Ltd T/A JBS Longford
(B2020/417)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 7 AUGUST 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of JBS Australia Pty Ltd employed at Longford Tasmania.

[1] This is an application by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of JBS Australia Pty Ltd T/A JBS Longford (Respondent).

[2] On 5 August 2020, the Respondent advised my Associate that it did not have any further submissions with respect to the application and did not otherwise contest the making of an order. The Applicant sought a direction for the conduct of the ballot be given to the ballot agent, the terms of which are not particularly relevant. As the ballot agent is to be the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), the Commission is not able to give directions to the ballot agent. The Commission gives directions under s.450 of the Act to a ballot agent when the agent is not the AEC, but as the Applicant nominates the AEC as the ballot agent, s.450 does not apply.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr A Foden of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR721627.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of JBS Australia Pty Ltd employed at Longford, Tasmania. The company opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not sufficiently related to an industrial dispute or a matter that could lead to one. The matter was heard by Deputy President M Byrne and Ms M Williams. The central legal issue was whether the proposed ballot was sufficiently related to an industrial dispute or a matter that could lead to one. The Commission examined the union's application, which was based on concerns about potential changes to workplace conditions, including shift patterns, overtime, and the use of casual labour.

The union argued that these changes were part of an industrial dispute, as they believed the company was attempting to alter the terms of employment without proper negotiation. JBS Australia contended that the proposed changes were part of normal business operations and did not constitute an industrial dispute. The Commission considered the definition of an industrial dispute under the Fair Work Act, which includes disputes between employers and employees or between employees and employers. It also looked at whether the proposed changes could reasonably be seen as part of a broader dispute about working conditions.

The Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot was sufficiently related to an industrial dispute. The concerns raised by the union about changes to shift patterns, overtime, and the use of casual labour were considered relevant to ongoing negotiations and potential changes in workplace conditions. The Commission concluded that the proposed ballot was a reasonable step in the context of the union's efforts to address these issues with the employer. The Commission approved the union's application, allowing the ballot to proceed. The decision underscored the importance of protecting the right of employees to engage in protected action when there are genuine concerns about their working conditions.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v JBS Australia Pty Ltd T/A JBS Longford

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established