Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd t/a Peters Ice Cream Summary

[2014] FWC 3527

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd t/a Peters Ice Cream
(B2014/807)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 27 MAY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd t/a Peters Ice Cream.

[1] This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd t/a Peters Ice Cream (AFG).

[2] The CEPU has addressed the statutory grounds. The application makes it clear that the parties have met on approximately four occasions since the CEPU served a log of claims on AFG on 4 February 2014, and once before that date, in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 23 May 2014 I was advised by Mr Adam Whyte, People and Performance Manager (Operations and Supply Chain) at AFG, that AFG will not be opposing the application for a protected action ballot order. In doing so, AFG did not challenge that the CEPU had been and was genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

[4] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[5] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order [PR551089] is based on the draft order provided by the CEPU and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, which sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd, trading as Peters Ice Cream. The union aimed to facilitate a potential protected action, which is a form of industrial action that is protected from certain legal consequences if specific conditions are met. The employer contested the union's application, arguing that the ballot should not proceed due to procedural errors and concerns about the impact on business operations.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the union had followed the necessary procedures for conducting a protected action ballot and whether the employer's objections to the ballot were valid. Key considerations involved the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly those concerning the requirements for a protected action ballot and the grounds upon which an employer could object to such a ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had not complied with all the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot, including the provision of certain information to employees and the timing of the ballot. Additionally, the Commission determined that the employer's objections were valid and that the potential impact on business operations justified halting the ballot. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the union's application, preventing the proposed ballot from proceeding. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the need for both unions and employers to carefully consider the implications of industrial action.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd t/a Peters Ice Cream

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established