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
(B2021/545)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 16 JULY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez 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 (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 (Respondent).

[2] On 16 July 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Joshua Gardner 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.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR731780.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought proceedings against Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred on a proposed ballot of Mondelez employees to authorize protected industrial action. The AMWU sought a declaration that the proposed ballot was lawful and should proceed. Mondelez contended that the ballot was unlawful, arguing that it was not appropriately linked to a genuine dispute of interest between the employees and the employer.

The legal issues before the Commission involved whether the proposed ballot complied with the statutory requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the ballot was in relation to a genuine dispute of interest and if it was otherwise compliant with the procedural requirements. The Commission examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the nature of the dispute, the terms of the proposed ballot, and the procedural steps taken to conduct the ballot.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot was in relation to a genuine dispute of interest between the employees and Mondelez. The Commission held that the AMWU had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was a real, as opposed to hypothetical, dispute concerning terms and conditions of employment. The Commission also found that the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act had been satisfied, and therefore, the proposed ballot was lawful. As a result, the AMWU's application for a declaration that the ballot should proceed was upheld.

The Commission ordered that the proposed protected action ballot of Mondelez employees should proceed as lawfully authorized by the AMWU. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that any proposed industrial action is properly linked to a genuine dispute and adheres to the statutory procedural requirements.

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