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
Unilever Australia Trading Limited
(B2017/1007)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 OCTOBER 2017

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

[2] On 25 October 2017 the Respondent advised that it does not oppose the application. However, on the same day I notified the parties that I was not satisfied with the drafting of the proposed questions to be put to employees. I requested the Applicant to file an amended application and it did so on the same day. On 26 October 2017, the Respondent advised my associate that it did not object to the amended 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 S Murphy 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 PR597117.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) and Unilever Australia Trading Limited. The union sought to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action among the employees of Unilever. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality and procedural correctness of the ballot process.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the AMWU had complied with the necessary statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot and whether the ballot notice provided by the union was sufficiently clear and precise. The court had to examine the specific wording of the ballot notice and assess whether it adequately informed the employees of the nature and potential consequences of the proposed industrial action.

In examining the ballot notice, the court found that it contained vague and ambiguous language that did not sufficiently inform the employees about the specific industrial action being proposed. The court held that the notice was deficient and thus, the ballot could not proceed. The court also noted that the notice failed to comply with the statutory requirements regarding the content and clarity of the information provided to the employees. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Unilever, finding that the ballot notice was inadequate and therefore invalid.

The court's decision effectively halted the union's proposed ballot of Unilever employees, as the ballot notice did not meet the necessary legal standards for clarity and precision. The court did not grant the union's request to conduct the ballot, and no further orders were made beyond the ruling on the invalidity of the ballot notice.

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

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established