| [2015] FWC 2888 |
| 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
Chef Fresh Pty Ltd
(B2015/68)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC | MELBOURNE, 28 APRIL 2015 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chef Fresh Pty Ltd.
[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Chef Fresh Pty Ltd (the Respondent).
[2] The AMWU has provided a Statutory Declaration addressing the statutory grounds. That Statutory Declaration makes it clear that the after the AMWU served a log of claims on the Respondent on 13 March 2015 there has been no response from the Respondent.
[3] On 27 April 2015 I was advised by Mr Matt Jenkin that the Respondent will not oppose the ballot as they are close to meeting with the AMWU for EBA bargaining discussions. In doing so, the Respondent did not challenge that the AMWU had been and was genuinely trying to reach agreement in respect of either site.
[4] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
[5] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order [PR563505] is based on the draft order provided by the AMWU and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR563504>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Chef Fresh Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 2888
- Case
- [2015] FWC 2888
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the Court was whether the union's proposed ballot was lawful and complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the union had provided the employer with the requisite information about the proposed industrial action, as well as whether the union had given the employer a reasonable opportunity to provide its views on the proposed action. The Court also had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the requirements of section 390 of the Act.
The Court found that the union had not provided the employer with the requisite information about the proposed industrial action, and had not given the employer a reasonable opportunity to provide its views on the proposed action. The Court also found that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the requirements of section 390 of the Act. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the union's application. The union appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Australia, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed.
The Fair Work Commission's decision was upheld, and the union's application for a declaration that the proposed protected action ballot be held was dismissed. The Full Bench of the Commission found that the union had not complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act, and accordingly, the proposed ballot was unlawful. The Court's decision serves as an important reminder to unions and employers alike of the importance of complying with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act when engaging in protected industrial action.
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.