DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
Norco Co-Operative Ltd
(B2020/814)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 15 DECEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Norco Co-Operative Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Norco Co-Operative Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 15 December 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

[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 Justin Smith of the AMIEU made on 12 December 2020, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR725471.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union versus Norco Co-Operative Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to consider the union's proposed industrial action. The dispute revolved around the union's intention to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Norco Co-Operative Ltd, which the company opposed, citing potential disruptions to their business operations.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed industrial action complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the union had adhered to the necessary procedural requirements before calling the ballot, including whether the union had given the employer a protected action notice and if the ballot was intended to be used for a protected action in relation to a genuine dispute of interest. Furthermore, the Commission needed to assess whether the proposed action was likely to cause undue hardship to the employer and its employees.

The Commission held that the union had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for calling a protected action ballot. The union did not provide the employer with a protected action notice and the ballot was not intended to be used for a genuine dispute of interest. The Commission found that the union's proposed action was not related to a workplace matter and did not meet the threshold for protected action under the Act. Consequently, the Commission rejected the union's application to hold the ballot, determining that the proposed industrial action did not comply with the statutory requirements.

As a result of the decision, the Fair Work Commission ordered that the union's application to hold a protected action ballot be dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of strict compliance with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 to ensure that any proposed industrial action is lawful and justified.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v Norco Co-Operative Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established