National Union of Workers v George Weston Foods Limited T/A Weston Milling (Enfield) and Weston Animal Nutrition (Enfield)
[2017] FWC 5587
•2 NOVEMBER 2017
| [2017] FWC 5587 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
National Union of Workers
v
George Weston Foods Limited T/A Weston Milling (Enfield) and Weston Animal Nutrition (Enfield)
(B2017/1005)
| Deputy President Gostencnik | MELBOURNE, 2 NOVEMBER 2017 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of George Weston Foods Limited T/A Weston Milling (Enfield) and Weston Animal Nutrition (Enfield).
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 George Weston Foods Limited T/A Weston Milling (Enfield) and Weston Animal Nutrition (Enfield) (Respondent).
On 26 October 2017 the Respondent advised that it does not oppose the application. On the same day I notified the parties that I would not be making a protected action ballot order containing a composite question in which multiple forms of industrial action are identified, as it was drafted by the Applicant. This was because I was not satisfied that the proposed question was sufficiently clear so that relevant employees may make an informed choice about whether to approve the proposed industrial action. In response, the Applicant outlined a number of concerns including that the proposed wording had been endorsed by its members since 2014, that the proposed wording has been accepted by other members of the Commission, that the Respondent has not objected to the application and that a variation of the proposed composite question would create a precedent culminating in confusion for the Applicant and its members. None of these matters were particularly compelling and did not address the core issue of clarity in the questions proposed.
Consequently I wrote to the parties outlining some proposed wording, in the form of an explanatory note, which would appear after the proposed composite question. The purpose of that explanatory note is to ensure that that which the employees are being asked to approve is sufficiently clear so that the employees may make an informed choice about whether to approve the proposed industrial action. I asked the Applicant whether it would be amenable to the inclusion (or a revised version of it) or alternatively, whether it wanted to be heard further on the matter. On 1 November 2017, the Applicant advised that it was content to accept the explanatory note and similarly, on 2 November 2017, the Respondent also advised that it was content to accept the explanatory note.
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 G Cripps 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 PR597168.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR597167>
0
0
0