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
Cordina Chicken Farms Pty Ltd
(B2019/225)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 MARCH 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cordina Chicken Farms 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) (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Cordina Chicken Farms Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 20 March 2019, 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 R Kearnan 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 PR706031.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) versus Cordina Chicken Farms Pty Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with reviewing the legality of a proposed industrial action ballot. The AMWU sought to conduct a ballot of the employees of Cordina Chicken Farms Pty Ltd to potentially take protected action in pursuit of their industrial demands. The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot was compliant with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the specific provisions regarding industrial action. The court was required to determine if the ballot was appropriately structured and if the union had adhered to the mandatory requirements, including providing the employer with a protected action notice.

The court examined the details of the proposed ballot and assessed whether the AMWU had met the statutory obligations for protected action. The primary focus was on the adequacy of the protected action notice, the timing of the ballot, and the procedural fairness towards the employer. The union argued that all requirements had been fulfilled, while Cordina Chicken Farms contended that the ballot was not in compliance with the legislative framework. The court delved into the legislative provisions and considered precedent cases to ascertain whether the union's actions were lawful.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the relevant statutory provisions, the court concluded that the proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The union had fulfilled the necessary obligations, including providing the requisite notice and adhering to procedural fairness. The court found no grounds to interfere with the union's proposed industrial action ballot, affirming that it was both lawful and appropriately conducted. The decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with legislative requirements in industrial action proceedings.

In light of the court's findings, it was ordered that the proposed industrial action ballot could proceed as per the union's plan. The court's decision reinforced the need for both unions and employers to meticulously follow the statutory guidelines when engaging in industrial action. This ruling provided clarity on the compliance standards for future industrial disputes and underscored the court's role in ensuring that the industrial action process remains within the legal framework.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Cordina Chicken Farms 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