DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia - Electrical, Energy and Services Division
v
McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd T/A McCain
(B2019/651)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 12 AUGUST 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 12 August 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent 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 Mr D King 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 PR711254.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia Electrical, Energy and Services Division, and McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd, trading as McCain. The dispute arose from the union's proposal to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of McCain Foods. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity and implications of the proposed ballot.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union's proposed ballot was valid and in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had correctly identified the appropriate bargaining agent and if the ballot complied with the procedural requirements outlined in the Act. Additionally, the court examined whether the proposed industrial action was lawful and whether there were any procedural or substantive grounds on which the ballot could be challenged.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the procedural aspects of the union's ballot, including whether the union had correctly identified the appropriate employer for the purposes of the ballot. The court also considered whether the union had followed the necessary steps to give the employer notice of the proposed action. The court found that the union had correctly identified the employer and had provided the requisite notice. Consequently, the court held that the proposed ballot was valid and in compliance with the statutory requirements. The court emphasised the importance of procedural compliance in ensuring that all parties were aware of and could respond to the proposed industrial action.

The court concluded that the union's proposed ballot was valid and ordered that the ballot could proceed as planned. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in industrial action to ensure fairness and transparency in the industrial relations process.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia Electrical, Energy and Services Division v McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd T/A McCain

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established