DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU)
v
Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/209)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 14 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 14 March 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr D Vroland 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 PR590965.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved a dispute between the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd to explore the possibility of industrial action. Mondelez opposed the ballot, arguing that it lacked a reasonable basis as it was based on a generalised concern about the future of the company's operations rather than specific, unresolved workplace issues.

The central legal issue was whether the proposed ballot had a reasonable basis under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the AMWU's proposed ballot was grounded in a legitimate concern about workplace issues that warranted employee consideration of protected action. The Commission considered whether the ballot was based on genuine, unresolved issues rather than speculative or generalised concerns about the company's future operations.

The Fair Work Commission concluded that the proposed ballot did not have a reasonable basis. The AMWU's concerns appeared to be speculative, focusing on the potential impact of corporate decisions on the employees' jobs and working conditions rather than concrete, unresolved workplace issues. The Commission held that a ballot must be based on specific, unresolved issues that directly affect the employees' working conditions or terms of employment. The proposed ballot did not meet this requirement, as it was driven by generalised concerns about the company's future rather than concrete workplace issues. Therefore, the Commission dismissed the AMWU's application to conduct the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd employees be disallowed, finding that it lacked the necessary reasonable basis under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that any protected action ballot is grounded in specific, unresolved workplace issues rather than generalised concerns about a company's future. This ruling reinforces the need for unions to ensure their proposed industrial actions are based on concrete workplace issues to meet the legal requirements for a reasonable basis.

"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