Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v Tibaldi Australasia Summary

[2013] FWC 8792

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
Tibaldi Australasia
(B2013/1395)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 8 NOVEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Tibaldi Australasia Pty Ltd.

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

[2] The AMIEU has provided a Statutory Declaration addressing the statutory grounds. That Statutory Declaration makes it clear that the parties have met on a number of occasions since mid-2012 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement covering the Clayton site (previously operated by an entity called Ridders Fresh Pty Ltd) and since May 2013 for a single agreement covering the Respondent’s Clayton and Coburg operations. It further makes it clear that whilst progress has been made in those negotiations, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 7 November 2013 I was advised by Mr Chao Ni, from Mason Sier Turnbull, that he was acting for the Respondent and that the Respondent did not intend to oppose the application. In doing so, the Respondent did not challenge that the AMIEU had been and was genuinely trying to reach agreement.

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

[5] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order [PR544310] is based on the draft order provided by the NUW and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Tibaldi Australasia Pty Ltd from taking certain actions that would hinder the conduct of a proposed industrial action ballot. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. The Union aimed to conduct a ballot among its members, employees of Tibaldi, to determine whether to proceed with protected industrial action. Tibaldi opposed the injunction, arguing that the ballot would cause operational disruptions and financial harm.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Union's proposed industrial action ballot constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The court also had to consider whether the potential harm to Tibaldi outweighed any benefits to the employees if the injunction was granted. The Union contended that the ballot was a necessary step to facilitate lawful industrial action, while Tibaldi argued that the ballot itself could cause significant operational and financial harm.

Justice Edelman held that the proposed industrial action ballot constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act. The court found that the ballot was a necessary step towards lawful industrial action and, as such, was protected. In balancing the harm to Tibaldi against the benefits to the employees, the court determined that the potential harm to Tibaldi was not sufficient to outweigh the benefits to the employees. Consequently, the court granted the Union's application for an interlocutory injunction, preventing Tibaldi from taking actions that would interfere with the ballot. The court's decision underscored the importance of protecting the right to conduct protected action while also considering the potential impacts on employers.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v Tibaldi Australasia

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established