DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
George Weston Foods Ltd T/A MAURI ANZ
(B2018/711)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 15 AUGUST 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of MAURI ANZ.

[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 George Weston Foods Ltd T/A MAURI ANZ (Respondent).

[2] On 14 August 2018 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 T Rossiter 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 PR609968.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved the National Union of Workers seeking authorisation for a proposed protected action ballot among employees of MAURI ANZ, a subsidiary of George Weston Foods Ltd. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness in the manner in which the union had proposed to conduct the ballot, particularly concerning the notice period provided to the employer. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the union's proposed method for conducting the ballot was procedurally fair and complied with the relevant legislative provisions.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the union's proposed ballot process met the notice obligations imposed on unions when seeking to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action. The employer argued that the union had failed to provide adequate notice of the ballot, while the union contended that the notice provided was sufficient and in line with the statutory requirements.

In its decision, the Commission examined the provisions of the Fair Work Act and relevant case law to assess the adequacy of the notice period. The Commission found that the union's proposed ballot notice did not comply with the statutory requirement to give the employer a minimum of seven days' notice before the ballot. The employer had only received notice two days before the ballot was to be conducted, which the Commission deemed insufficient. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the union's proposed ballot process was not procedurally fair, and it did not grant authorisation for the ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory notice periods to ensure that employers have an adequate opportunity to respond and engage in discussions with the union.

The Fair Work Commission's final order was that the proposed protected action ballot, as notified by the National Union of Workers, was not authorised due to procedural unfairness in the notice period provided to George Weston Foods Ltd. This decision underscores the necessity for unions to comply strictly with statutory notice requirements when planning to conduct a ballot for protected industrial action.

National Union of Workers v George Weston Foods Ltd T/A MAURI ANZ

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established