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
Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/137)

Food, beverages and tobacco manufacturing industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK	SYDNEY, 10 FEBRUARY 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd.

[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 Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 10 February 2017 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 S Diston 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 PR590173.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission considered a dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd. The Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees for protected industrial action, while Mondelez opposed the ballot, arguing it was not eligible under the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which had to determine the eligibility of the Union's proposed ballot.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union's proposed industrial action met the statutory requirements for eligibility under section 391 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that the proposed action was in relation to a 'workplace dispute' and was therefore eligible. Mondelez contended that the proposed action was not a genuine workplace dispute and did not meet the statutory criteria.

The Commission examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on whether the proposed industrial action related to a genuine workplace dispute. The Commission found that the Union's proposed industrial action was indeed related to a genuine workplace dispute and satisfied the requirements of the Act. Consequently, the Union's application for a ballot was approved, and Mondelez's objections were dismissed.

The Fair Work Commission's decision resulted in the Union being authorised to proceed with the proposed protected action ballot of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd employees. The Commission's ruling confirmed that the Union's proposed industrial action was eligible under the Fair Work Act 2009, allowing the ballot to proceed as planned.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established