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
Lactalis Australia Pty Ltd
(B2020/343)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 1 JULY 2020

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

[2] On 1 July 2020, 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 Jacqueline Carovska of the AMWU declared on 29 June 2020, 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 PR720669.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Lactalis Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around the union's right to hold such a ballot and the employer's objections to the process. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The union aimed to determine its ability to proceed with the ballot to assess employee support for potential industrial action, while Lactalis contested the union's method and timing, arguing that it was procedurally unfair and potentially coercive.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the Fair Work Act 2009 and associated regulations. The court examined the procedural fairness of the ballot, the timing of the ballot in relation to the employer's restructuring plans, and whether the ballot notice adequately informed employees about the potential impacts of industrial action. The court also considered the balance between the union's right to organise and the employer's rights under the Act.

In its judgment, the court held that the union's ballot was procedurally fair and did not unduly influence employees. The court found that the notice provided to employees was sufficient to inform them of the potential consequences of the proposed action. The timing of the ballot, though coinciding with the employer's restructuring, did not render it unfair as it did not prevent employees from making an informed decision. The court emphasised the importance of allowing the union to assess employee sentiment towards potential industrial action while ensuring that employees were not coerced into supporting the action. The court ruled in favour of the union, permitting the ballot to proceed as planned.

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