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

[2014] FWC 1340

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
(B2014/32)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 25 FEBRUARY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 20 February 2014.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

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

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(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.

[4] The AMWU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statement signed by Barry Terzic, Industrial Officer.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the AMWU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) versus Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd involved a dispute regarding a proposed protected action ballot by employees of Mondelez Australia. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was tasked with determining whether the AMWU's ballot, which sought to authorise protected action, was lawful. The AMWU aimed to ballot its members who were employed by Mondelez, seeking approval to take industrial action over certain employment conditions. Mondelez contested the ballot, arguing that it was not aligned with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the FWC was whether the AMWU's ballot complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act, specifically section 391, which outlines the conditions under which a union can lawfully hold a ballot. The FWC had to examine whether the AMWU had provided Mondelez with sufficient particulars of the proposed action and whether the ballot notice was in the required form and content. Additionally, the FWC needed to determine if the proposed action related to a 'workplace matter' as defined under the Act, and whether the ballot was conducted in good faith and within the scope of the union's authority.

The FWC found that the AMWU's ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission considered that the AMWU had provided Mondelez with adequate information about the proposed action and that the ballot notice was appropriately detailed. The FWC determined that the proposed action related to a genuine workplace matter, and there was no evidence suggesting that the AMWU had acted in bad faith. Consequently, the FWC ruled that the AMWU's ballot was lawful and permitted the AMWU to proceed with the ballot as planned. The decision underscored the importance of unions adhering to statutory requirements when seeking to authorise industrial action, while also affirming the union's right to ballot members on matters pertinent to their employment conditions.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established