| [2019] FWC 5990 |
| 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
Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd
(B2019/709)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN | SYDNEY, 28 AUGUST 2019 |
Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd t/as 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) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).
[2] On 28 August 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.
[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Michael Wickham of the AMWU declared on 25 July 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR711780.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR711779>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Fonterra Ingredients Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 5990
- Case
- [2019] FWC 5990
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had provided sufficient particulars to the employer regarding the proposed industrial action, as mandated by section 310 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The employer argued that the union had not given adequate details about the nature, timing, and location of the proposed action. The union, on the other hand, contended that it had provided sufficient information to the employer and that the employer's objections were unfounded.
The Fair Work Commission examined the details of the union's proposed ballot and the information provided to the employer. The Commission found that the union had not supplied sufficient particulars regarding the proposed action, as required by the law. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the union's proposed ballot did not comply with the legal requirements, and it dismissed the union's application. The Commission emphasised the importance of providing specific details to the employer to facilitate meaningful consultation and to ensure that the proposed action was lawful and justifiable.
In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission determined that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the statutory requirements for conducting a lawful industrial action ballot. The Commission dismissed the union's application and found that the employer's objections were valid. The decision highlights the need for unions to provide detailed information to employers before conducting a ballot for protected action, ensuring that the proposed action is lawful and justifiable.
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.