DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
General Mills Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd and General Mills Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/188)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 8 MARCH 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of General Mills Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd and General Mills 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 General Mills Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd and General Mills Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 6 March 2017 my associate was advised that the Respondents 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 Mujkic of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondents and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondents, 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 PR590734.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers took legal action against General Mills Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd and General Mills Australia Pty Ltd, concerning a proposed protected action ballot of employees. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving the dispute. The primary issue before the court was whether the ballot was in compliance with the necessary legal requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court examined whether the ballot notice provided by the union was sufficient and whether it adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in the Act. The union argued that the ballot notice was adequate and in line with the law, while the respondents contended that it did not meet the necessary standards. The court meticulously reviewed the content and timing of the ballot notice, the information provided to the employees, and whether the ballot was conducted in a manner consistent with the Fair Work Act.

The court found that the ballot notice did not meet the statutory requirements as it failed to provide employees with adequate information and was not served within the specified timeframe. Consequently, the court ruled that the proposed protected action ballot was unlawful and did not comply with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The court's decision brought the matter to a close, with no further orders required beyond the ruling itself.

National Union of Workers v General Mills Manufacturing Australia Pty Ltd and General Mills 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