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
v
Lactalis Australia Pty Ltd T/A Lactalis
(B2020/520)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Lactalis Australia Pty Ltd T/A Lactalis.

[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 Lactalis Australia Pty Ltd T/A Lactalis (Respondent).

[2] On 11 September 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the 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 PR722728.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved a dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Lactalis Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Lactalis. The union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Lactalis Australia, a decision that Lactalis challenged on the basis of compliance with the applicable industrial laws and procedural requirements. The case was heard and determined by the Fair Work Commission, which holds significant authority in resolving workplace disputes under Australian industrial relations legislation.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the union had complied with the requisite procedural steps before conducting the ballot and whether the ballot itself was lawful and appropriate. Specifically, the court had to determine if the union had correctly identified the relevant employees for the ballot, provided adequate notice to the employer, and adhered to the prescribed timelines and formalities. Furthermore, the court considered whether the proposed industrial action was protected under the Fair Work Act 2009 and if the employer had any valid objections to the ballot on grounds such as operational impact or procedural deficiencies.

The Fair Work Commission carefully examined the union's compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in the Fair Work Act. It found that the union had correctly identified the relevant employees and provided Lactalis with the necessary notice. The court also concluded that the proposed ballot was within the scope of protected industrial action, as it related to a genuine dispute over terms and conditions of employment. Despite Lactalis's objections, the Commission determined that the procedural steps were adequately followed, and there were no valid grounds to prevent the ballot from proceeding. Consequently, the Commission upheld the union's right to conduct the ballot, finding that it was both procedurally valid and aligned with the legal standards governing industrial actions.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union could proceed with the proposed protected action ballot among the employees of Lactalis Australia. The decision affirmed the union's right to engage in lawful industrial action, subject to the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. This ruling underscored the importance of procedural compliance in industrial actions and the Commission's role in ensuring that both employers and employees can exercise their rights within the framework of Australian industrial relations law.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Lactalis Australia Pty Ltd T/A Lactalis

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established