| [2019] FWC 1501 |
| 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
Nestle Australia Ltd
(B2019/194)
| Deputy President Gostencnik | MELBOURNE, 7 MARCH 2019 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nestle Australia Limited.
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 Nestle Australia Ltd (Respondent).
On 7 March 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr J 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.
An order has been separately issued in PR705620.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR705619>
- AGLC
- “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Nestle Australia Ltd [2019] FWC 1501
- Case
- [2019] FWC 1501
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the proposed ballot and subsequent protected action were authorised under the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, it had to assess if the AMWU's ballot proposal adhered to the procedural and substantive requirements, including whether the proposed action was related to the negotiations for a new enterprise agreement and if the ballot was conducted in a manner consistent with the Act. Furthermore, the court needed to consider if Nestle Australia had raised any legitimate objections to the ballot that would warrant its disallowance.
The Fair Work Commission found that the AMWU's proposed ballot and the intended protected action were procedurally and substantively compliant with the Fair Work Act. The Commission concluded that the ballot was necessary and appropriate, given the context of the enterprise agreement negotiations and the nature of the proposed protected action. The court rejected Nestle Australia's objections, determining that they did not provide sufficient grounds to disallow the ballot. The Commission authorised the AMWU to proceed with the ballot, allowing the employees to vote on the proposed industrial action.
The Fair Work Commission authorised the AMWU to conduct the proposed ballot among its members employed by Nestle Australia. This decision permitted the employees to express their support for the proposed protected action, which could include a strike, in the context of the ongoing enterprise agreement negotiations. The authorisation was granted subject to compliance with the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.