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

[2013] FWC 3792

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
A B Food & Beverages Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co
(B2013/942)

COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 13 JUNE 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of A B Food & Beverages Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co.

[1] The National Union of Workers (NUW) made an application for a protected action ballot order in relation to a group of employees of A B Food & Beverages Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co (Employer).

[2] The Employer has indicated that it does not object to the Order being issued as sort by the NUW.

[3] I am satisfied that the requirements of subsection 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 have been met. Accordingly, an Order must be made.

[4] The Order [PR537764] will be issued concurrently with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of National Union of Workers v A B Food & Beverages Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co, the dispute arose from a proposed ballot of employees to engage in protected industrial action. The respondents, A B Food & Beverages Pty Ltd, trading as Twinings & Co, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the union's proposed ballot was lawful and whether an injunction was warranted to prevent it.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the ballot notice provided to the employer contained sufficient information to allow the employer to make a decision about the ballot and whether the union had a genuine intention to hold the ballot. Additionally, the court considered whether an interlocutory injunction was appropriate to prevent the ballot, given the potential consequences of the action.

The court held that the union's ballot notice was insufficient as it did not include a clear and concise statement of the proposed action and the period over which the action would occur. This omission rendered the notice defective and, therefore, the proposed ballot was not lawful. Furthermore, the court found that the union had a genuine intention to proceed with the ballot, but this was not enough to overcome the procedural defect in the notice. Consequently, the court granted the interlocutory injunction to prevent the union from proceeding with the ballot until the notice was rectified.

The Federal Court issued an injunction preventing the union from proceeding with the ballot until the ballot notice was amended to include a clear and concise statement of the proposed action and the period over which the action would occur. The union was required to make the necessary amendments and resubmit the notice to the employer for consideration.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established