DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
(B2016/383)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 MARCH 2016

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

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (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 Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Limited. (the Respondent).

[2] On 21 March 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 P Richardson 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 PR578223

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of the National Union of Workers, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with adjudicating on a dispute between the National Union of Workers and Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Limited. The union had sought to conduct a ballot of its members, employees of Murray Goulburn, to ascertain their support for protected action. Murray Goulburn opposed the ballot, arguing that the union did not have the requisite support among its members to proceed with such an action. The crux of the matter lay in whether the union could legally proceed with the proposed ballot under the relevant industrial laws.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the union had the necessary support of its members to conduct a protected action ballot. The court had to interpret the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, which governs industrial action in Australia. The union argued that the support of a majority of its members was sufficient to proceed with the ballot. Conversely, Murray Goulburn contended that the union needed to demonstrate a higher threshold of support, specifically 75% of its members, to conduct the ballot.

The court examined the legislative framework and the established case law to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions. It found that the union's interpretation was consistent with the statutory language and the principles of fairness and good faith bargaining. The court held that the union did not need the support of 75% of its members to proceed with the ballot but rather a majority, as defined by the act. Consequently, the union was entitled to conduct the ballot as proposed. The court's decision underscored the importance of following statutory procedures and ensuring that industrial action is conducted in accordance with the law.

The court's final orders were that the union was permitted to proceed with the proposed ballot of its members, employees of Murray Goulburn, and that Murray Goulburn's opposition to the ballot was dismissed. The union's right to conduct the ballot was upheld, ensuring that the employees' voices could be heard in the context of potential industrial action.

National Union of Workers

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established