“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited

[2022] FWC 3090

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

H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited

(B2022/1743)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 22 NOVEMBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited

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 H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited (Respondent).

On 21 November 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Andrew Bonello 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR748156.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered an application by the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order regarding employees of H.J. Heinz Company Australia Limited. The AMWU sought to hold a ballot to authorise potential protected actions by its members, as allowed under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on the conditions of employment and the terms of an agreement between the union and the company.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the AMWU had genuinely attempted to negotiate with H.J. Heinz and if the notification period specified in the Act had been met. The AMWU had to demonstrate that it had made reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with the company, and that the proposed agreement was in the best interests of its members. Additionally, the Commission needed to confirm that the notification period as required by section 443(1) of the Act was adhered to before allowing the ballot.

The Deputy President, Clancy, concluded that the AMWU had genuinely attempted to negotiate and reach an agreement with H.J. Heinz. The evidence, including the declaration by Mr Andrew Bonello of the AMWU, substantiated that the union had taken appropriate steps in bargaining with the company. Furthermore, the notification period stipulated in the Act was found to be appropriate. As a result, the application for the ballot was approved. The decision was made without a hearing, as H.J. Heinz did not object to the application.

The final orders included the approval of the AMWU’s application for a protected action ballot and the issuance of an order under separate reference number PR748156. This ruling allows the AMWU to proceed with the ballot, enabling its members to vote on potential protected actions in pursuit of their employment-related objectives.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established