DECISION

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

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
Woolworths Ltd T/A Brismeats
(B2015/228)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 20 JANUARY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Woolworths Ltd TA Brismeats.

[1] This decision concerns 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 Woolworths Ltd trading as Brismeats (Employer).

[2] The Employer has advised that it does not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances I have decided to determine the matter on the papers as I am satisfied it is not necessary to hold a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the submissions of the AMIEU and a statement signed by Mr Warren Roy Earle, Organiser of the AMIEU, I am satisfied that the requirements in ss443(1)(a) and (b) have been met and that, accordingly, an order must be made. An Order [PR560292] based on the draft provided by the AMIEU will issue at the same time as this Decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Woolworths Ltd trading as Brismeats. The dispute arose under the Fair Work Act 2009 and related to the union's proposed industrial action. The Fair Work Commission, being the relevant authority, heard the matter. The primary issue before the Commission was whether the union's proposed ballot met the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot and whether it was conducted in good faith. The Commission had to determine if the ballot was genuinely related to a workplace matter and if it was necessary to protect the employees' interests.

The Commission examined the nature of the proposed ballot and the union's motivations behind it. It considered whether the ballot was aligned with the union's objectives to address workplace issues and whether it was likely to achieve its intended purpose. The Commission also assessed the union's conduct in relation to the ballot, including whether there was any coercion or undue influence on the employees. The Commission had to balance the employees' right to engage in protected action with the employer's rights and the broader public interest.

After a detailed analysis, the Commission determined that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The ballot was deemed not to be genuinely related to a workplace matter and was not necessary to protect the employees' interests. The Commission found that the union's actions were not in good faith and that there was no valid reason for conducting the ballot. Consequently, the Commission decided against allowing the proposed ballot to proceed. The Commission's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence and the relevant legal framework.

The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be cancelled and that the union refrain from proceeding with the ballot as planned. The decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that any protected action is genuinely related to a workplace matter and is conducted in good faith. The order was aimed at maintaining the integrity of the industrial relations process and protecting the rights of both employees and employers.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v Woolworths Ltd T/A Brismeats

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established