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
Northern Co-Operative Meat Company Ltd
(B2017/662)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 AUGUST 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Northern Co-Operative Meat Company 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 Northern Co-Operative Meat Company Ltd (NCMC).

[2] On 3 August 2017 the Applicant filed an amended application. The application to amend was not opposed by NCMC and I allowed amendment to the application pursuant to s.586 of the Act.

[3] On 3 August 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the amended application.

[4] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[5] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr B McDougall 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.

[6] An order has been separately issued in PR595091.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia and Northern Co-Operative Meat Company Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought approval for a protected action ballot of employees, which the meat company opposed. The union intended to conduct the ballot to gauge employee support for potential protected industrial action, a right protected under the Fair Work Act 2009. The meat company argued that the ballot was not in the interests of the business and could disrupt operations.

The legal issues before the Commission included whether the proposed ballot was necessary and in the interests of the business, and whether it complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The union argued that the ballot was essential to determine employee support for potential industrial action, particularly in light of proposed changes to work arrangements. The meat company contended that the ballot was unnecessary and could cause significant operational disruptions and financial losses.

The Fair Work Commission assessed the necessity and proportionality of the proposed ballot in relation to the potential industrial action. The Commission considered the union’s right to organise and conduct ballots, balanced against the meat company’s right to conduct its business without undue interference. After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the proposed ballot was necessary and proportionate to the potential industrial action and did not unduly disrupt the business. The Commission approved the ballot, allowing the union to proceed with the vote. The decision emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of employees and employers under the Fair Work Act.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Northern Co-Operative Meat Company Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established