Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 7712

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2014/1098)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

SYDNEY, 30 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd - Slaughter Floor.

[1] This is 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 Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd engaged in the Slaughter Floor at the Corowa plant.

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. I have received, and rely upon a witness statement of Ms Deidre Williams, an Organiser of the AMIEU New South Wales Branch providing information about matters relevant to s.443 of the Act.

[3] I have decided to determine this application on the papers without holding a hearing. I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of the Act, and s.443 in particular, have been met. Accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR557210] based on the draft order provided by the AMIEU will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, representing the employees of Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd, sought to conduct a ballot of its members concerning potential protected action. The company contested the ballot's legitimacy, leading to a legal dispute before the Fair Work Commission. The central issue was whether the union had the right to conduct the ballot without first lodging an enterprise agreement with the Fair Work Commission.

The Fair Work Commission examined the legal basis for the union's action under the Fair Work Act. It considered whether the union had complied with the legislative requirements for protected action, specifically whether it had made a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute through bargaining before resorting to a ballot. The commission also assessed whether the union's proposed ballot was narrowly tailored to address the specific issues at hand. Ultimately, the commission found that the union had not adequately attempted to negotiate with the employer, and the proposed ballot was not sufficiently focused on the specific issues. Therefore, the union's application to conduct the ballot was rejected.

In light of the findings, the Fair Work Commission ruled that the union could not proceed with the proposed ballot. The commission ordered the union to engage in further bargaining with the employer, providing an opportunity to address the underlying issues. The decision underscores the importance of attempting to resolve disputes through negotiation before resorting to protected action, and it highlights the need for a focused and narrowly tailored ballot to ensure its legitimacy. The commission's ruling was based on a detailed analysis of the union's actions and the legislative framework governing industrial action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established