DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2016/266)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 11 FEBRUARY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Fonterra Brands (Australia) 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 Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 9 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 Mr A Portelli 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 PR576920.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought proceedings against Fonterra Brands (Australia) Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around the company's refusal to allow the union to conduct a ballot among employees regarding proposed protected industrial action. The union argued that the proposed ballot was necessary to facilitate lawful industrial action in pursuit of better working conditions and wages for the employees. Fonterra Brands, on the other hand, claimed that the ballot was not aligned with the requirements set out under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The key legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act and whether the company's refusal to permit the ballot was justified under the circumstances. The court had to examine the relevant sections of the Act, particularly those dealing with the processes for ballots and the rights of employers and employees regarding industrial action. Additionally, the court considered the implications of the proposed action on the company's operations and its employees' rights to take part in the ballot process.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the union's proposed ballot did indeed comply with the procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act. The court noted that the union had provided the necessary details and that the ballot aimed to address legitimate workplace concerns. The company's refusal to permit the ballot was deemed to be unreasonable and in breach of the employees' rights under the Act. The court ordered Fonterra Brands to allow the union to conduct the ballot and directed the company to provide the necessary support to facilitate the process. The court's ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to legal processes in industrial relations matters and upheld the rights of employees to organise and participate in lawful industrial action.

National Union of Workers v Fonterra Brands (Australia) 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