DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
PFD Food Services Pty Ltd
(B2019/1269)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 4 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PFD Food Services Pty 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 PFD Food Services Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 4 November 2019, 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 statutory declaration of Amanda Harvey of the AMIEU declared on 1 November 2019, 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 PR713977.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union sought an order from the Fair Work Commission against PFD Food Services Pty Ltd to prevent the company from undertaking a proposed ballot of its employees on protected industrial action. The dispute arose due to the Union's objection to the proposed ballot, claiming it was not sufficiently related to the negotiation of a new enterprise agreement or variations to an existing one. The matter was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission, an industrial relations tribunal in Australia.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was validly related to a "bargaining objective" under the Fair Work Act. The Union argued that the ballot did not meet the statutory criteria for protected action, particularly in relation to the negotiation of a new enterprise agreement. The company contended that the ballot was related to the bargaining objective and was therefore protected.

The Fair Work Commission examined the nature of the proposed ballot and the context in which it was being conducted. The Commission found that the ballot was indeed related to a bargaining objective, as it involved discussions about potential changes to the terms and conditions of employment. The Union's objections were centred on the form and timing of the ballot, rather than its substantive content. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot was validly related to a bargaining objective and dismissed the Union's application.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that PFD Food Services Pty Ltd could proceed with the proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected industrial action. The Union's application was dismissed, and no further orders were made by the Commission.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v PFD Food Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established