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)
v
Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd
(B2016/1084)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

PERTH, 12 OCTOBER 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fonterra Australia 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) (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 Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 11 October 2016 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 D Vroland 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 PR586380.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, also known as the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union, commenced proceedings against Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd, seeking an injunction to prevent the company from proceeding with a proposed ballot of its employees. The dispute centred on the union's objections to the proposed ballot, which it claimed was procedurally flawed and thus invalid. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed ballot complied with the necessary procedural requirements under relevant industrial relations laws and if the union's objections to the ballot were valid. The court had to examine the ballot's form, the process by which it was to be conducted, and the union's contentions about procedural shortcomings. Additionally, the court considered the implications of any procedural errors on the validity of the ballot.

The court determined that the proposed ballot did not meet certain procedural requirements outlined in the legislation, rendering it invalid. The union's objections were substantiated, as the ballot failed to provide adequate information to the employees and did not allow for a fair process. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that employees are fully informed and have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. Consequently, the court granted the union's application for an injunction, preventing Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd from proceeding with the ballot as proposed.

In light of the findings, the court issued an injunction restraining Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd from proceeding with the ballot unless and until it complied with the necessary legal requirements. The injunction was designed to protect the employees' rights to a fair and lawful process. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural integrity in industrial relations matters.

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