“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v LD&D Foods Pty Ltd T/A Lactos

Case [2015] FWC 7867


[2015] FWC 7867
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
LD&D Foods Pty Ltd T/A Lactos
(B2015/1602)

COMMISSIONER LEE

MELBOURNE, 16 NOVEMBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of LD&D Foods Pty Ltd (trading as Lactos).

[1] This matter involves an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of LD&D Foods Pty Ltd T/A Lactos (the Respondent), pursuant to section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

    “(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

      (a) an application has been made under section 437; and

      (b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

    (2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

    (3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

      (a) the name of each applicant for the order;

      (b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

      (c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

      (d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

    (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.

    (4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

      (a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

      (b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

    (5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

    Note: Under subsection 414(1), before a person engages in employee claim action for a proposed enterprise agreement, a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement must give written notice of the action to the employer of the employee.”

[3] On 13 November 2015, my Chambers was advised by the Respondent that it did not object to application.

[4] At my direction, the Applicant lodged a statutory declaration of Mr John Short, State Secretary, “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), addressing the requirements of the Act.

[5] In particular, I note I am satisfied that the requirements of section 443 of the Act have been met, that the Applicant has been and is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the draft order meets the requirements of section 443(3) of the Act. The Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent.

[6] As I am satisfied that the requirements of the Act have been met, pursuant to section 443 of the Act, the Order must be made. The Order [PR573987] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR573986>

Details
AGLC
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v LD&D Foods Pty Ltd T/A Lactos [2015] FWC 7867
Case
[2015] FWC 7867
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) filed an application on behalf of employees of LD&D Foods Pty Ltd (trading as Lactos) for authorisation of a protected action ballot. The respondents to the application were LD&D Foods Pty Ltd and a named individual. The primary dispute centred on the proposed industrial action by the employees, specifically a ballot to authorise strike action. The matter was heard before Deputy President K. W. Lee in the Fair Work Commission.

The legal issues before the Commission involved determining whether the proposed industrial action was protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. The AMWU argued that the employees were engaging in protected action for a "primary dispute" as defined in the Act, which included a dispute over wages and conditions of employment. The respondents, LD&D Foods Pty Ltd and the named individual, contended that the proposed action did not constitute protected action because it was not genuinely for the purposes of a workplace dispute.

The Commission considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. Deputy President Lee determined that the proposed industrial action was indeed protected action for a primary dispute. The Commission found that the employees' claims were related to wages and conditions, and the action was taken in good faith for the purposes of advancing those claims. Consequently, the application for authorisation of the protected action ballot was approved.

The Fair Work Commission issued an order authorising the AMWU to conduct a ballot among the employees of LD&D Foods Pty Ltd to determine whether they supported the proposed industrial action. The respondents' objections were dismissed, and the Commission ruled in favour of the AMWU, allowing the ballot to proceed.

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.