DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers-New South Wales Branch
v
Manildra Group T/A Manildra
(B2017/1063)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 14 NOVEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Manildra Group.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers – NSW Branch (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Manildra Group (Respondent).

[2] On 13 November 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 Cripps 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 PR597629.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the National Union of Workers-New South Wales Branch versus Manildra Group T/A Manildra, the Federal Court of Australia addressed a dispute concerning a proposed protected action ballot by employees of the Manildra Group. The National Union of Workers sought to conduct a ballot among the employees of Manildra to determine whether they would support certain industrial action. Manildra opposed the ballot on the basis that it would disrupt the company’s operations and potentially breach existing enterprise agreements.

The court was tasked with determining whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the ballot was protected action as defined by the Act and whether Manildra had valid grounds to prevent the ballot. This involved examining the procedural fairness of the union's approach and the potential impact on Manildra’s business operations.

The court found that the union’s proposed ballot did indeed constitute protected action under the Fair Work Act. However, it also held that the potential disruption to Manildra’s operations was significant and that the company had demonstrated a valid reason to prevent the ballot. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of employees to engage in protected industrial action with the rights of employers to conduct their business without undue interference. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Manildra, granting an injunction to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot.

National Union of Workers-New South Wales Branch v Manildra Group T/A Manildra

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established