National Union of Workers v A B Food & Beverages Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co

[2013] FWC 4208

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.448—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
A B Food & Beverages Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co
(B2013/997)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 27 JUNE 2013

Application to revoke order made in B2013/942.

[1] On 13 June 2013 the Fair Work Commission (Commission) issued a Protected Action Ballot Order [PR537764] (Original Order) following an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW).

[2] On 27 June 2013 the NUW made an application to revoke the Original Order.

[3] Section 448 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) states:

448 Revocation of protected action ballot order

(1) An applicant for a protected action ballot order may apply to the FWC, at any time before voting in the protected action ballot closes, to revoke the order.

(2) If an application to revoke a protected action ballot order is made, the FWC must revoke the order.

[4] Voting in the protected action ballot pursuant to the Original Order was to close 20 working days from the date the Original Order was issued on 13 June 2013. That means voting in the protected action ballot is due to close on 11 July 2013.

[5] Because the NUW has applied to revoke the Original Order before 11 July 2013, pursuant to section 448(2) of the Act, the Commission must revoke the Original Order.

[6] An Order [PR538325] to this effect will issue concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers (the Applicant) filed an application seeking to revoke an order made in a previous proceeding, B2013/942, involving A B Food & Beverages Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co (the Respondent). The original order was made to prevent the Respondent from terminating employees' employment, and the Applicant now sought to revoke this order. The application was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over employment-related disputes.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Applicant had provided sufficient grounds to justify the revocation of the earlier order. The Applicant argued that the circumstances had changed significantly since the initial order was made, warranting a revocation to ensure fairness and justice. The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the conditions had not changed to the extent that the order should be revoked, and that maintaining the order was necessary to protect the employees' rights.

In its decision, the Commission examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Commission noted that while some changes had occurred, they did not sufficiently justify a revocation of the order. The Commission emphasised the importance of the initial order in maintaining employment security and ensuring that the parties' rights and obligations were upheld. Based on this analysis, the Commission determined that the Applicant had not met the threshold for revocation. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the original order remained in place.

The Commission's final order was that the application to revoke the earlier order in B2013/942 was dismissed, and the original order preventing the Respondent from terminating employees' employment remained effective. The parties were directed to comply with the existing terms of the order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established