DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
AB Food and Beverages Aust Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co
(B2019/372)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 MAY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of AB Food and Beverages Aust Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of AB Food and Beverages Aust Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co (Respondent).

[2] On 10 May 2019, 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 Tom Sayers 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 PR708244.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved a dispute between the National Union of Workers and AB Food and Beverages Aust Pty Ltd, trading as Twinings & Co. The union sought to conduct a ballot of the company's employees to ascertain their support for protected action, specifically a strike. AB Food and Beverages opposed the ballot, arguing that the union did not have a genuine dispute with the company and that the proposed action would be unlawful.

The primary legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had a genuine dispute with the employer and whether the proposed action was protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission had to determine if the union's claims were reasonable in the circumstances and if the proposed action was lawful. The company argued that the union's claims were not reasonable and that the proposed action was not protected.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union did have a genuine dispute with the employer as the claims related to the employees' wages and conditions of employment, which were matters within the union's scope of industrial action. The Commission determined that the proposed action was protected action under the Fair Work Act, as it was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, the Commission ordered AB Food and Beverages to facilitate the union's ballot of its employees.

National Union of Workers v AB Food and Beverages Aust Pty Ltd T/A Twinings & Co

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established