DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
v
OSI International Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2015/1381)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

BRISBANE, 13 OCTOBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of OSI International Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd.

[1] On 12 October 2015, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (Applicant) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of the OSI International Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] The application is made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act).

[3] The Respondent was served with the application within 24 hours after the making of it to the Fair Work Commission (Commission).

[4] The employees to be balloted are presently covered by the OSI International Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd Blacktown Production Employees Agreement 2011-2015 (Agreement).

[5] On 12 October 2015, the Respondent confirmed in writing that it did not object to the Order being issued.

[6] The Commission is satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[7] The Order [PR572828] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v OSI International Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd, the dispute centred on a proposed ballot of employees regarding protected action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, with the Union acting as the representative for the employees and OSI International Foods (Australia) Pty Ltd as the employer. The crux of the dispute was whether the proposed ballot was lawful and if the employer had the right to object to its conduct.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the ballot was appropriately organised and if the employer's objections were justified. The Union argued that the ballot was a necessary step to empower employees and to seek a fair resolution of industrial disputes. Conversely, the employer contended that the ballot's timing and manner were improper and could potentially disrupt operations, leading to financial and logistical difficulties.

The Commission examined the procedural fairness and the necessity of the ballot. It considered the Industrial Relations Act and relevant case law to determine if the ballot was conducted in accordance with the law. The Commission concluded that while the Union had the right to organise a ballot, the manner in which it was proposed needed to be balanced against the employer's operational needs. Ultimately, the Commission ruled that the employer's objections were valid, and the ballot could not proceed in the proposed form without further consultation.

The Commission ordered that the ballot be postponed and that further discussions be held between the Union and the employer to address the concerns raised. The Commission emphasised the importance of communication and negotiation to avoid potential disruptions and to ensure a fair process for all parties involved.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v OSI International Foods (Australia) 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