| [2022] FWC 2867 |
| 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
Mondelez Australia (Foods) T/A Mondelez International
(B2022/1609)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY | MELBOURNE, 25 OCTOBER 2022 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez Australia (Foods) T/A Mondelez International.
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 Mondelez Australia (Foods) T/A Mondelez International (Respondent).
On 25 October 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr Simon Pisoni 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.
An order has been separately issued in PR 747205.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR747204>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Mondelez Australia (Foods) T/A Mondelez International [2022] FWC 2867
- Case
- [2022] FWC 2867
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the Commission had to address were whether the union had complied with the notification requirements and whether it had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer. The union submitted a declaration from Mr Simon Pisoni, asserting that it had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement with the employer and that a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement had been given. The Commission considered the material provided, including the declaration, and found that the union had met the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act.
In its decision, the Commission found that the union had indeed complied with the notification requirements and had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer. Consequently, the Commission determined that the union was entitled to proceed with the protected action ballot. The Commission issued an order in PR 747205 to facilitate the ballot process.
The Fair Work Commission's decision underscores the importance of following the proper procedures when seeking to organise a protected action ballot. The union's compliance with the notification requirements and its genuine efforts to reach an agreement with the employer were critical factors in the Commission's determination. The order issued enables the union to proceed with the ballot, allowing its members to exercise their rights under the Fair Work Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.