DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers
v
Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd
(B2017/489)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 19 JUNE 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 19 June 2017 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 Mr D Melling 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 PR593897.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought proceedings against Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd concerning a proposed ballot of employees to take protected industrial action. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality of the ballot, given the employer's concerns about potential disruptions to operations.

The central legal issue was whether the ballot, which aimed to empower employees to take protected action, complied with the necessary statutory requirements. Specifically, the employer questioned the appropriateness of the ballot process and whether it had been conducted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to examine the procedural fairness of the ballot and whether the employer had acted lawfully in seeking to prevent it.

In its reasoning, the court held that the union had not adequately demonstrated that the proposed ballot complied with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The employer had raised legitimate concerns about the potential impact on business operations and the need for adequate consultation. The court found that the union had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the proposed action, and the employer's concerns were reasonable and warranted a preliminary injunction to prevent the ballot. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the employer, granting an injunction to halt the ballot until further order.

The court's final orders included a preliminary injunction preventing the union from proceeding with the ballot, pending further court directions. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and the need for employers and unions to engage in good faith negotiations to avoid unnecessary disruptions.

National Union of Workers v Australasian Food Group Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established