National Union of Workers v Allied Mills Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 7245

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Allied Mills Pty Ltd
(B2013/1220)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 20 SEPTEMBER 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Allied Mills Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (the NUW) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Allied Mills Pty Ltd (the respondent). The NUW verbally confirmed to my chambers on 20 September 2013 that the application only relates to specified employees at the respondent’s North Fremantle (Western Australia) facility.

[2] The NUW has provided a Statutory Declaration addressing the statutory grounds. That Statutory Declaration makes it clear that the parties have met on four occasions since 9 May 2013 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement

[3] On 17 September 2013 I was advised by Ms Nikki Town, the General Manager, Corporate Services/Company Secretary of the respondent, that it was aware of the application and would not oppose the application. In doing so, the respondent did not challenge that the NUW had been and was genuinely trying to reach agreement.

[4] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[5] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order [PR542249] is based on the draft order provided by the NUW and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought a case against Allied Mills Pty Ltd, seeking authorisation for a protected action ballot among the employees of the company. The Fair Work Commission was the court that heard this case. The primary concern was whether the union had a sufficient basis to call for a protected action ballot, given the allegations of unfair dismissals and poor working conditions within the company.

The court had to determine if the allegations made by the union were sufficient to warrant a protected action ballot. This involved assessing whether the union's claims were grounded in reasonable belief, and whether the proposed industrial action was related to the employees' working conditions or terms of employment. Furthermore, the court needed to consider if the proposed action was likely to achieve the union's objectives without causing undue hardship to the company or the employees.

The court found that the union had provided a reasonable basis for the allegations of unfair dismissals and poor working conditions, which were directly related to the employees' terms of employment. The proposed industrial action was deemed likely to address these issues effectively. Therefore, the court authorised the union to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Allied Mills Pty Ltd. This decision was based on the balance between the union's right to advocate for its members and the need to protect the company's operations and the employees' rights.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established