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

[2013] FWC 2262

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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
(B2013/778)

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 12 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union" known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the AMWU filed a statement. The statement was made by Robyn Fortescue, the State Secretary of the TSA Division of the AMWU. The statement was dated 23 March 2011. This appears to be a typographical error and should be 23 March 2013.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the AMWU, that the AMWU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR535665] based on the draft order provided by the AMWU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

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 among employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited. The union aimed to gauge employee support for potential industrial action due to ongoing disputes. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter, tasked with determining whether the ballot could proceed under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue revolved around whether the proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the union's ballot notice was sufficiently detailed and whether it provided Unilever with adequate opportunity to respond. Additionally, the court considered whether the ballot was conducted for a permissible purpose, such as negotiating an enterprise agreement or resolving an existing workplace dispute.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's ballot notice was not sufficiently detailed, as it did not provide Unilever with enough information to adequately respond. The notice lacked specificity regarding the nature and scope of the proposed industrial action, which was necessary for Unilever to assess the potential impact and prepare a response. Furthermore, the commission held that the ballot was not for a permissible purpose because it was not tied to negotiations for an enterprise agreement or resolving an existing workplace dispute. Consequently, the commission ruled that the ballot could not proceed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established