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
Simplot Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/261)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 APRIL 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Simplot Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by 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 Simplot Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 15 April 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 Barry Terzic 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 PR728697.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) brought proceedings against Simplot Australia Pty Ltd, seeking an injunction and declarations regarding a proposed industrial action ballot. The union argued that the proposed ballot, which would have allowed employees to vote on protected action, was procedurally flawed and therefore invalid. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed industrial action ballot was procedurally valid, particularly in light of the union's obligation to comply with the requirements of section 170CB of the Fair Work Act 2009. The AMWU contended that the ballot was flawed because it did not provide employees with sufficient information about the proposed action and did not allow for an opportunity to be heard. The court had to examine the content of the ballot paper, whether it complied with the necessary statutory requirements, and if the union had acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The court found that the ballot paper did not provide employees with sufficient information to make an informed decision. The ballot did not outline the nature, scope, or duration of the proposed action, nor did it detail the potential impact on employees and the company. The court determined that the ballot paper was misleading as it did not disclose that the union was seeking to impose new terms and conditions on the employees. As a result, the court held that the ballot was procedurally invalid. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by the company, issuing an injunction and declarations that the proposed ballot was unlawful and that the union was required to comply with the Act's provisions.

The court issued an injunction preventing the union from proceeding with the proposed ballot. The court also declared that the proposed ballot was invalid due to its procedural flaws and that the union must comply with the requirements of section 170CB of the Fair Work Act. The union was ordered to pay the company's costs of the proceedings.

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