DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Farm Pride Foods Limited
(B2019/1187)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 OCTOBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Farm Pride Foods 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 Farm Pride Foods Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 15 October 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent understood that it did not have grounds to 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 Dilek Tiauli 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 PR713380.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers sought an injunction against Farm Pride Foods Limited to prevent the company from proceeding with a proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected action. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The union argued that the ballot was invalid as it did not provide sufficient information to employees to enable an informed decision on whether to engage in protected action. Farm Pride Foods Limited, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was adequate and that the union's application should be dismissed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the ballot complied with the requirements of section 31 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which mandates that ballots for protected action must contain sufficient information to ensure employees make an informed decision. The court had to determine whether the ballot provided by Farm Pride Foods Limited met these statutory requirements and if the union's application for an injunction was justified.

The court found that the ballot did not contain sufficient information for employees to make an informed decision. The ballot lacked details about the potential consequences of the protected action, including the possibility of dismissal or other adverse employment outcomes. The court concluded that the information provided was inadequate under section 31 of the Act. Consequently, the union's application for an injunction was granted, and Farm Pride Foods Limited was restrained from proceeding with the ballot. This decision underscores the importance of providing comprehensive information to employees during protected action ballots to ensure they are fully informed.

National Union of Workers v Farm Pride Foods Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established