National Union of Workers v Burra Foods Pty. Ltd Summary

[2017] FWC 5283

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

National Union of Workers

Burra Foods Pty. Ltd.

(B2017/944)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 12 OCTOBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Burra Foods Pty. Ltd.

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 Burra Foods Pty. Ltd. (Respondent).

On 12 October 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

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.

An order has been separately issued in PR596760.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers initiated legal proceedings against Burra Foods Pty. Ltd. in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around a proposed protected action ballot of the employees of Burra Foods, which the union sought to conduct. The union aimed to ascertain whether the proposed ballot was lawful under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the employer had violated any provisions of the Act in its opposition to the ballot. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the validity of the union's ballot and the employer's actions in response.

The court had to resolve whether the union's proposed ballot was protected action as defined under the Act and if the employer had acted lawfully in opposing it. The union argued that the ballot was a legitimate exercise of its members' rights to engage in protected action, whereas the employer contended that the ballot was not bona fide and that its opposition was reasonable and proportionate. The court also needed to consider whether the employer had engaged in any unlawful conduct, such as interfering with the union's activities or discouraging employees from participating in the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found in favour of the union. It determined that the proposed ballot was bona fide and protected action under the Act, and that the employer's opposition to the ballot was not justified. The court found that the employer had engaged in unlawful conduct by interfering with the union's activities and discouraging employees from participating in the ballot. The Commission issued orders requiring the employer to cease its unlawful conduct and to facilitate the union's ballot, ensuring that employees could participate in the proposed protected action without fear of reprisal.

National Union of Workers v Burra Foods Pty. Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established