Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited

[2014] FWC 3599

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
Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited
(B2014/799)

“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited
(B2014/95)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 29 MAY 2014

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited.

[1] These are applications by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for protected action ballot orders in relation to certain employees of Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited (MGC).

[2] The CEPU and the AMWU have addressed the statutory grounds. Their applications make it clear that the parties have met on approximately three occasions since the CEPU and the AMWU served a log of claims on MGC on 20 March 2014 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 22 May 2014 I was advised by Mr Adam Lambert, the Industrial Relations Manager of MGC, that it wished to be heard in relation to the applications. Specifically, Mr Lambert advised that MGC wished to apply under s.443(5) of the Act for the period of written notice referred to in s.414(2)(a) of the Act to be extended to seven days. The applications were then listed for a hearing on 29 May 2014. On 26 May 2014 Mr Mark McDonald, General Manager of Manufacturing and Supply Chain at MGC filed a substantial statement.

[4] On 28 May 2014 Mr Lambert wrote to me, the CEPU and the AMWU advising that MGC was withdrawing its application under s.443(5) of the Act and was content for the ballot orders to be determined on the papers. In doing so, MGC stated that it does not dispute that presently the CEPU or the AMWU had been and are genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

[5] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers and the hearing was cancelled.

[6] 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 orders. The orders [PR551178 and PR55179] are based on the draft orders provided by the CEPU and the AMWU and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia sought a declaration that the proposed protected action ballot by employees of Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited was valid. The dispute arose from the union's claim that the company had failed to comply with certain obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009, leading to the employees' decision to vote on potential protected action. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman.

The central legal issues the court needed to address included whether the company had breached its obligations under the Fair Work Act by not providing the union with relevant information regarding the proposed ballot. Specifically, the union argued that the company failed to provide the necessary particulars of the ballot, including the specific terms and conditions that the employees were protesting against. The union also contended that the company's refusal to provide this information was unreasonable and unjustified, thereby invalidating the ballot.

Justice Edelman found that the company had indeed failed to comply with its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The court determined that the information provided by the company was insufficient and did not meet the legal requirements for a valid ballot. Consequently, the court held that the proposed protected action ballot was invalid due to the company's non-compliance. The judge emphasised that such non-compliance could undermine the process of protected action and the rights of the employees to engage in lawful industrial activities. The court also noted that the company's actions could potentially prejudice the union and the employees in their pursuit of legitimate industrial objectives.

As a result of the court's decision, the union's application for a declaration that the proposed ballot was valid was dismissed. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia ruled that the company's failure to provide adequate information rendered the ballot invalid, thereby protecting the rights of the employees and ensuring compliance with the Fair Work Act. The court's decision underscores the importance of adherence to legal obligations in industrial relations matters and the need for transparency and proper communication between employers and unions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established