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
(B2020/259)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2020

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 (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 (Respondent).

[2] On 7 May 2020, 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 statutory declaration of Mr John Short 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 PR719244.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) versus Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was called upon to consider an application by the AMWU regarding a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd. The AMWU sought authorisation for a ballot of its members employed by Mondelez to determine whether they would support protected action in pursuit of a new enterprise agreement. Mondelez opposed the application on the grounds that it was not satisfied that the union had provided sufficient information to assess the scope and impact of the proposed industrial action.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the AMWU had satisfied the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 for an application for authorisation of a protected action ballot. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the AMWU had provided Mondelez with adequate information regarding the proposed industrial action to allow Mondelez to properly assess the scope and impact of the action. The Commission considered whether the information provided by the AMWU was sufficient for Mondelez to understand the nature of the proposed action and its potential impact on the business.

The Commission found that the AMWU had not provided Mondelez with sufficient information to assess the scope and impact of the proposed industrial action. The AMWU had failed to provide details about the nature of the action, the duration, and the likely impact on Mondelez's operations. As a result, Mondelez could not properly assess the potential consequences of the proposed action. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the AMWU's application for authorisation of the ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of the AMWU providing detailed and accurate information to enable Mondelez to make an informed decision about the proposed industrial action.

No orders were made by the Commission as the application was dismissed.

“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