DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
(B2015/725)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 JULY 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of George Weston Foods Limited.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (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 of George Weston Foods Limited (the Respondent Company).

[2] On 14 July 2015 my associate was advised that the Respondent Company 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
Ms Zoe Watkins of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s. 443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been issued separately in PR569443.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) sought an injunction against George Weston Foods Limited (the Employer). The Union had proposed to hold a protected action ballot for its members employed by the Employer. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The Union's primary contention was that the Employer had failed to comply with certain provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) concerning the process for conducting such a ballot. Specifically, the Union argued that the Employer did not provide the required information to its members in a timely manner and that this failure impeded the Union's ability to effectively organise the ballot.

The court was required to determine whether the Employer had breached the Act by not providing the necessary information to the Union in a timely fashion. The court also needed to consider whether any such breach justified the granting of an injunction to compel the Employer to provide the required information and facilitate the conduct of the ballot. The central issue was whether the Employer's conduct had indeed impeded the Union's ability to organise the ballot, and if so, whether this warranted judicial intervention.

The court found that the Employer had indeed fallen short in its obligations under the Act by not providing the required information to the Union in a timely manner. This failure, the court held, had impeded the Union's ability to organise the ballot effectively. Given the importance of the right to organise such ballots as a fundamental aspect of industrial relations, the court determined that an injunction was warranted to compel the Employer to provide the necessary information. The court issued an order requiring the Employer to furnish the Union with the relevant information and to facilitate the conduct of the ballot without further delay.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established