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
Parmalat Australia YD Pty Ltd
(B2016/1160)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 NOVEMBER 2016

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

[2] On 4 November 2016 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 King 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 PR587231.

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 and Parmalat Australia YD Pty Ltd. The union sought to hold a ballot of its members, who were employees of Parmalat, to determine whether they wished to take protected industrial action. Parmalat opposed the ballot, arguing that it was not a genuine attempt by the union to resolve a workplace dispute and was instead intended to cause harm to the company. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues the court had to address were whether the proposed industrial action was genuinely aimed at resolving a workplace dispute and whether the union's proposed action was in compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine if the union's motives were genuine and if the proposed action was reasonable and proportionate to the workplace dispute. The court also considered whether Parmalat had acted in bad faith by opposing the ballot.

In its judgment, the court found that the union's motives for the proposed industrial action were genuine as they were intended to address a genuine workplace dispute. The court was satisfied that the union had a reasonable belief that the proposed action would help resolve the dispute. The court also determined that the proposed action was proportionate to the workplace dispute and that Parmalat had not acted in bad faith by opposing the ballot. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.

The court's final orders included granting the union's application to hold the ballot, with the ballot to be conducted in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009. The court emphasised the importance of the union's ability to hold such ballots as a legitimate means of resolving workplace disputes.

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