DECISION

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

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
(B2015/636)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 JULY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of George Weston Foods Limited.

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of George Weston Foods Limited (the Respondent Company).

[2] On 14 July 2015 my associate was advised that the Respondent Company did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of
Mr Steven Dargavel of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s. 443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR569453.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and George Weston Foods Limited, where the union sought to conduct a protected action ballot of its members, who were employees of the company. The union aimed to gauge support for potential industrial action in response to certain employment conditions. The Fair Work Commission was the forum for this dispute.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the ballot notice provided sufficient information to employees to make an informed decision and if the proposed industrial action was protected action as defined by the Act. The employer argued that the ballot notice was deficient and the proposed action was not protected action.

The Fair Work Commission held that the ballot notice was inadequate as it did not contain all the required information under the Act, particularly in relation to the potential impact of the proposed industrial action on the employer's business. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the notice did not comply with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the Commission found that the proposed industrial action did not qualify as protected action because it did not relate to the employees' terms and conditions of employment or their employment itself. As a result, the Commission did not grant the union's request to conduct the ballot.

In conclusion, the Commission determined that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the statutory criteria for both the content of the ballot notice and the nature of the proposed action. The Commission refused the union's application, thereby preventing the ballot from proceeding.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established