DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd
(B2018/491)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Parmalat 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 Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 21 June 2018, 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 D Timmers of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR608355.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Union) sought a declaration from the court that a proposed industrial action ballot of employees of Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd (Parmalat) was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that the ballot was necessary to secure improved conditions of employment, and that Parmalat's decision to prevent the ballot constituted an unfair workplace practice. Parmalat, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was not protected action and that its decision to prevent the ballot was lawful and reasonable.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed ballot was protected action under the Fair Work Act, and whether Parmalat's decision to prevent the ballot constituted an unfair workplace practice. The key issue was whether the ballot was genuinely intended to be used to secure improved conditions of employment, or whether it was merely a pretext for taking industrial action. The court also had to consider whether Parmalat's decision to prevent the ballot was a reasonable management response to the proposed action.

In determining these issues, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the proposed ballot was genuinely intended to be used to secure improved conditions of employment, and that it was therefore protected action under the Fair Work Act. The court also found that Parmalat's decision to prevent the ballot was not a reasonable management response, and constituted an unfair workplace practice. The court noted that Parmalat had not provided any evidence to support its decision to prevent the ballot, and that its actions had caused unnecessary disruption and inconvenience to the employees.

As a result of these findings, the court made a declaration that the proposed ballot was protected action, and that Parmalat's decision to prevent the ballot constituted an unfair workplace practice. The court also ordered Parmalat to take all necessary steps to ensure that the employees were able to conduct the ballot, and to compensate the employees for any losses or damages they had suffered as a result of Parmalat's actions.

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