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

[2022] FWC 1277

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

Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd

(B2022/474)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 24 MAY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd

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 Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

On 24 May 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 Michael Wickham 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 PR741928.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involves the Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU), also known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, and Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd. The AMWU, acting on behalf of its members, sought a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This request was in relation to certain employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, indicating a dispute likely centred around employment terms and conditions or workplace issues that required resolution through a ballot for protected industrial action.

The primary legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the AMWU had satisfied the statutory requirements to hold a protected action ballot. This included verifying that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer and that the notification period specified in the Act had been met. The Commission had to assess the declaration from Mr. Michael Wickham of the AMWU, which outlined the union's efforts and attempts to negotiate with Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, to determine if these efforts were genuine and if the conditions for a ballot were fulfilled.

The Deputy President, Clancy, concluded that the union had indeed met the necessary requirements. Given that Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd did not object to the application, and based on the evidence provided by the AMWU, the Deputy President was satisfied that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement and that the notification period was observed. Consequently, the application for a protected action ballot order was granted. This decision allowed the AMWU to proceed with a ballot to determine the next steps in the industrial dispute.

An order was issued to allow the AMWU to conduct the ballot as requested. This decision was documented and printed by the Commonwealth Government Printer, ensuring the ruling was formally recorded and available for reference in future legal proceedings. The Commission's ruling provided clarity on the procedural aspects of the dispute, facilitating the union's ability to represent its members in negotiations with the employer.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established