DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
v
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
(B2020/112)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 26 FEBRUARY 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 26 February 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 statutory declaration of Ms Patricia Maria Fernandez of the Applicant declared on 26 February 2020, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has 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 PR717054.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union brought an action against Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought authorisation to conduct a ballot of Inghams employees for the purpose of engaging in protected industrial action. Inghams opposed the union's application, arguing that the proposed action was not protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed action qualified as protected action, and if the union was eligible to conduct a ballot for that action.

The primary legal issue was whether the proposed action constituted protected action under section 356 of the Fair Work Act. The union argued that the proposed action, which included a stoppage of work, was a lawful stoppage in the course of employment and thus protected action. Inghams contended that the proposed action was not protected because it was not in response to a workplace dispute. The Commission had to determine the nature and scope of protected action and assess whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements.

The Commission held that the proposed action was protected action under the Fair Work Act. It found that the proposed stoppage of work was in response to a workplace dispute, and therefore constituted protected action. The Commission authorised the union to conduct a ballot of Inghams employees for the purpose of engaging in the proposed industrial action. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission considered the statutory definitions and the relevant case law on the meaning of protected action. The union's application was successful, and the Commission granted the authorisation for the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission authorised the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union to conduct a ballot of Inghams employees for the purpose of engaging in protected industrial action. The Commission found that the proposed stoppage of work was in response to a workplace dispute and thus qualified as protected action under the Fair Work Act.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Inghams Enterprises 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