DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Corvina Foods Pty Ltd
(B2016/303)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 26 FEBRUARY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Corvina Foods 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 Corvina Foods Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 23 February 2016 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 A Wyrick of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR577387.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The Federal Court was called upon to decide whether Corvina Foods Pty Ltd could be prohibited from implementing changes to the employment conditions of its employees without first undertaking a process of genuine consultation. The applicants, the National Union of Workers, sought an injunction to prevent Corvina Foods from altering the terms and conditions of employment of its workers, arguing that the company had failed to genuinely consult with the employees before proposing these changes. The dispute arose out of Corvina Foods' intention to conduct a ballot of its employees to determine their views on proposed changes to their employment conditions. The Union claimed that the proposed ballot was not a genuine consultation process as required under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the proposed ballot by Corvina Foods constituted genuine consultation as required under section 302 of the Fair Work Act. The Union argued that the ballot did not involve meaningful consultation and would not provide an opportunity for employees to express their views on the proposed changes. Corvina Foods, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was a genuine attempt to consult with its employees and that it provided an opportunity for employees to express their views on the proposed changes. The court had to consider whether the proposed ballot met the legal requirements of genuine consultation and whether it provided an opportunity for employees to express their views on the proposed changes.

The court found that the proposed ballot did not constitute genuine consultation as required under the Fair Work Act. The court held that the ballot did not provide an opportunity for employees to express their views on the proposed changes in a meaningful way. The court noted that the ballot was not designed to facilitate a two-way dialogue between Corvina Foods and its employees, and that it did not provide an opportunity for employees to ask questions or seek clarification on the proposed changes. The court also found that the ballot did not provide an opportunity for employees to express their views on the proposed changes in a confidential manner, which was a requirement under the Fair Work Act. The court held that the proposed ballot was not a genuine attempt to consult with employees and that Corvina Foods was required to undertake genuine consultation before implementing the proposed changes to the employment conditions of its employees.

The court issued an injunction prohibiting Corvina Foods from implementing the proposed changes to the employment conditions of its employees without first undertaking a process of genuine consultation. The court also ordered Corvina Foods to provide the Union with information about the proposed changes and to engage in further consultation with its employees. The court noted that the injunction was necessary to prevent Corvina Foods from unilaterally implementing changes to the employment conditions of its employees without first undertaking a process of genuine consultation. The court held that genuine consultation was an important part of the industrial relations system in Australia and that it was necessary to ensure that employers and employees were able to reach agreement on changes to employment conditions in a fair and transparent manner.

National Union of Workers v Corvina Foods 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