DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Americold Logistics Limited
(B2018/799)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 6 SEPTEMBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Americold Logistics Limited.

[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 Americold Logistics Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 5 September 2018, 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 Ms H Milfin 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 PR700179.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought proceedings against Americold Logistics Limited in the Fair Work Commission, seeking authorisation for a proposed protected action ballot of the company's employees. The union's objective was to gauge employee support for potential industrial action, including stoppages and bans on overtime, in response to the company's refusal to negotiate on certain workplace conditions. The dispute centred around the terms and conditions of employment, specifically the union's request for improved pay and conditions for the employees.

The legal issues before the Commission involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, particularly sections concerning the authorisation of protected action ballots. The union argued that the company's refusal to negotiate in good faith justified the proposed industrial action, while the employer contended that the ballot did not meet the statutory requirements and would cause unnecessary economic harm. The Commission had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the legislative criteria and whether the potential industrial action was proportionate to the dispute at hand.

In its decision, the Commission found that the union's proposed ballot did not meet the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The Commission emphasised that protected action ballots must be based on a genuine dispute over terms and conditions of employment and that the proposed action must be necessary and proportionate. The Commission concluded that the potential harm to the company and its employees outweighed the benefits of the proposed action. Consequently, the Commission did not grant authorisation for the ballot, citing the lack of necessity and proportionality of the proposed industrial action.

The Commission's decision was based on its assessment of the evidence presented by both parties and the statutory criteria outlined in the Fair Work Act. The Commission's ruling effectively prevented the union from proceeding with the proposed protected action ballot, ensuring that any industrial action taken would be lawful and justifiable under the Act. The company's refusal to negotiate was not found to be in breach of the Act, and the Commission did not order any specific action in relation to the dispute.

National Union of Workers v Americold Logistics Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established