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
Nufarm Australia Limited
(B2017/218)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nufarm Australia Limited.

[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 Nufarm Australia Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 20 March 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 G Glover 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 PR591102.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was called upon to resolve a dispute between the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) and Nufarm Australia Limited (Nufarm). The Union sought approval for a ballot of its members, who were employees of Nufarm, to determine whether they would support protected action in the form of a strike. Nufarm opposed the ballot on the grounds that it was not related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment and was instead motivated by a desire to protest Nufarm's decision to change its pension scheme.

The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment, as required by the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine whether the dispute over the pension scheme change constituted a dispute about the employees' terms and conditions, thereby making the ballot eligible for approval. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the Union's motives in calling the ballot were genuinely related to the employees' terms and conditions or whether they were instead driven by a desire to protest Nufarm's decision.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot was indeed related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment, as the dispute over the pension scheme change directly affected those terms and conditions. The Commission emphasised that changes to pension schemes could have a significant impact on employees' financial security and were therefore relevant to their employment conditions. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the Union's motives in calling the ballot were primarily related to the employees' terms and conditions, even though the Union also had other motivations. As a result, the Commission approved the ballot, allowing the Union to proceed with the proposed industrial action.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Nufarm Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established