| [2017] FWC 3567 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Cerebos (Australia) Limited T/A Cerebos Foods
(B2017/560)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 5 JULY 2017 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cerebos (Australia) Limited t/as Cerebos Foods.
[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 Cerebos (Australia) Limited t/a Cerebos Foods (the Respondent).
[2] On 5 July 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent 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 S Murphy 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.
[5] An order has been separately issued in PR594330.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR594331>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Cerebos (Australia) Limited T/A Cerebos Foods [2017] FWC 3567
- Case
- [2017] FWC 3567
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot proposed by the AMWU was procedurally compliant with the requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the Commission needed to assess whether the ballot notice provided to the employees contained all the necessary information and whether the timing and method of the ballot were appropriate. The company contended that the ballot notice was deficient in several respects, including the absence of certain statutory information and the failure to provide a sufficient period for employees to consider the ballot. The AMWU, on the other hand, argued that the ballot was properly conducted and that the company's objections were without merit.
In its decision, the Commission determined that the ballot proposed by the AMWU did indeed contain deficiencies that rendered it procedurally invalid. The Commission found that the ballot notice did not include all the information required by the Fair Work Act, and the timing of the ballot did not allow for adequate employee consideration. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the company and declared the ballot invalid. The Commission's ruling was based on a detailed examination of the statutory provisions and the evidence presented by both parties regarding the procedural aspects of the ballot.
The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be deemed invalid, and no further action could be taken on its basis. The Commission's decision was based strictly on the procedural compliance of the ballot with the relevant industrial relations laws and did not address the merits of the proposed industrial action itself.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.