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
Nufarm Australia Limited
(B2017/469)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 8 JUNE 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nufarm Australia 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 Nufarm Australia Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 8 June 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 PR593616.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought to conduct a protected action ballot of employees of Nufarm Australia Limited, which the employer challenged on the basis that the ballot did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Fair Work Commission heard the dispute and delivered its decision in Nufarm Australia Limited v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) [2023] FWC 1086. The Commission found in favour of the employer and prohibited the ballot.

The primary issue before the Commission was whether the ballot notice provided by the AMWU was sufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The AMWU argued that the ballot notice was adequate, while Nufarm contended that the notice was insufficiently detailed to enable the employer to ascertain the scope and nature of the proposed action. The Commission considered the statutory requirements for a ballot notice under the Fair Work Act and examined the content of the AMWU's notice to determine whether it complied with these requirements.

In its decision, the Commission held that the AMWU's ballot notice did not provide sufficient detail to enable the employer to ascertain the scope and nature of the proposed action. The Commission found that the notice did not specify the period for which the proposed action would be taken, nor did it outline the specific types of action that employees were being asked to vote on. The Commission concluded that these omissions rendered the notice insufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. As a result, the Commission prohibited the AMWU from proceeding with the ballot.

The Commission issued an order prohibiting the AMWU from conducting the proposed protected action ballot until and unless a ballot notice was provided that complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The AMWU was directed to take all necessary steps to ensure that any future ballot notice provided to Nufarm met the statutory requirements.

"Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Nufarm Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established