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
Saputo Dairy Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/391)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 JUNE 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Saputo Dairy 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 (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Saputo Dairy Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 4 June 2021, 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 declaration of Mr Michael Wickham 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 PR730495.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) sought a declaration that the proposed protected action ballot of employees of Saputo Dairy Australia Pty Ltd (Saputo) was lawful. The dispute was heard by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) which was required to determine whether the ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The AMWU argued that Saputo had failed to provide the required information to employees prior to the ballot and that the ballot was therefore invalid. Saputo contended that the ballot was valid and that the AMWU's application should be dismissed.

The FWC found that the AMWU's application was premature and that there was no need to determine the validity of the ballot at that time. The FWC noted that the AMWU had not provided any evidence to support its claims and that the ballot had not yet been held. The FWC also found that the AMWU had not demonstrated that it had standing to bring the application on behalf of the employees. The FWC held that the AMWU's application should be dismissed and that the matter was not suitable for determination at that time.

The FWC found that the AMWU's application was premature and that there was no need to determine the validity of the ballot at that time. The FWC noted that the AMWU had not provided any evidence to support its claims and that the ballot had not yet been held. The FWC also found that the AMWU had not demonstrated that it had standing to bring the application on behalf of the employees. The FWC held that the AMWU's application should be dismissed and that the matter was not suitable for determination at that time.

The FWC dismissed the AMWU's application and made no orders. The FWC noted that the matter could be revisited if and when the ballot was held and if the AMWU could provide evidence to support its claims. The FWC also noted that the parties were free to negotiate and reach a resolution of the dispute without the need for further legal proceedings.

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v Saputo Dairy 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