Australian Workers' Union v Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 1587

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Australian Workers’ Union
v

Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/602)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd.

This is an application by the Australian Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 22 June 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Anthony Beven of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR742928.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd (Fonterra). The application was heard by Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 22 June 2022. Fonterra did not object to the application, leading Deputy President Clancy to decide the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the AWU had satisfied the requirements of section 437 of the Fair Work Act to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court had to determine if the AWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Fonterra, and if the statutory notification period for the proposed agreement had been met. The court's decision hinged on the evidence provided by the AWU, including the declaration by Mr Anthony Beven, which outlined the union's bargaining efforts and adherence to the Act's requirements.

Deputy President Clancy was satisfied, based on the material before him, that the AWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Fonterra, and that the notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been met. Consequently, the Deputy President concluded that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. The court determined that the application should be granted, allowing the AWU to proceed with the protected action ballot.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order in PR742928, granting the AWU's application for a protected action ballot. The decision was based on the evidence provided by the AWU and the absence of any objections from Fonterra. The outcome allows the AWU to proceed with the ballot, providing a means for the employees to express their views on the proposed agreement.

Australian Workers' Union v Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established