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
(B2017/816)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 SEPTEMBER 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 11 September 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 PR595992.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court 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. The union sought to conduct a ballot of its members for the purpose of determining whether they would support protected industrial action. Mondelez Australia opposed the ballot on the basis that it was not a "recognised" union as required by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the union was indeed recognised and, consequently, whether the proposed ballot was lawful.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had been properly recognised by Mondelez Australia as the representative of its employees for the purposes of the Fair Work Act. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and the procedural requirements for union recognition, as well as the evidence presented by both parties regarding the circumstances of the recognition process. The union argued that it had been recognised by Mondelez Australia, while Mondelez contended that the recognition was invalid due to procedural irregularities.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the evidence and submissions made by both parties. It considered whether the recognition process had been conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether Mondelez had fulfilled its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The court concluded that the union had indeed been recognised by Mondelez Australia, and that the procedural irregularities identified by Mondelez did not invalidate the recognition. Consequently, the union was entitled to conduct the proposed ballot of its members.

The court's decision confirmed that the union was recognised by Mondelez Australia and thus authorised to conduct the proposed ballot. The court's ruling provided clarity on the procedural requirements for union recognition and reinforced the importance of adhering to the statutory framework in employment relations. The outcome allowed the union to proceed with its planned industrial action, subject to the outcome of the ballot.

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