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

[2014] FWC 1490

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 Pty Ltd
(B2014/565)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 3 MARCH 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by 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 (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 Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The CEPU has provided a Statutory Declaration addressing the statutory grounds. That Statutory Declaration makes it clear that the parties have met on approximately ten occasions since 1 November 2013 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 3 March 2014 I was advised by Ms Deb Seeber that the Respondent was not intending to oppose the ballot. In doing so, the Respondent did not challenge that the CEPU had been and was genuinely trying to reach agreement in respect of either site.

[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 [PR548290] 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 involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members employed by Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, against Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd itself. The dispute centred on a proposed protected action ballot by employees, seeking to address certain employment-related grievances. The Fair Work Commission heard the matter, tasked with interpreting and applying the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd had unlawfully interfered with the employees' right to conduct a protected action ballot. The Commission needed to determine whether the employer's actions, as alleged by the Union, constituted an interference under the Act and whether any such interference was justified or protected under the law. Additionally, the Commission was required to assess whether the employer had provided the necessary information to the employees to facilitate an informed decision-making process regarding the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found that Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd had indeed interfered with the employees' right to conduct the ballot. The employer's actions, including the distribution of a document to employees, were deemed to have the potential to influence the employees' decision-making process, thereby constituting an interference. The Commission held that this interference was not justified as it was not related to any protected industrial action. Furthermore, the employer was found to have failed to provide the employees with the necessary information to make an informed decision about participating in the ballot. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the Union, finding that the employer had unlawfully interfered with the employees' rights.

The Fair Work Commission ordered Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd to cease the interference with the employees' right to conduct the ballot and to provide the employees with all necessary information to ensure an informed decision-making process. The employer was also directed to take steps to mitigate any adverse effects of the interference on the employees and to facilitate the conduct of the ballot in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established