DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Graincorp Foods Australia Pty Ltd
(B2018/73)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 FEBRUARY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Graincorp Foods 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 Graincorp Foods Australia Pty Ltd.

[2] On 7 February 2018 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application on the basis of an amendment being made to item 3 of the proposed order. On the same day, my associate wrote to the Applicant seeking its views with respect to an amendment being made to item 3 of the proposed order. On the same day, the Applicant advised that it was not opposed to making the amendment proposed by the Respondent and attached an amended copy of the draft order and 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 Ms I Beynon 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 PR600283.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the National Union of Workers initiated proceedings against Graincorp Foods Australia Pty Ltd concerning a proposed ballot of employees regarding protected industrial action. The dispute centred on the union's attempt to conduct a vote among Graincorp's employees to ascertain their support for potential industrial action. The union sought to proceed with the ballot, asserting that it was necessary to gauge the employees' willingness to participate in protected action. Conversely, Graincorp contested the union's actions, arguing that the ballot was not aligned with the statutory requirements and procedural fairness.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the union had the requisite authorisation to conduct the ballot and whether the ballot process itself complied with the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the union had followed the proper procedures for initiating a ballot and whether the employees had been adequately informed about the nature and implications of the proposed industrial action. Additionally, the court examined whether the ballot met the criteria for procedural fairness, ensuring that all parties were given a fair opportunity to present their case.

The Federal Court held that the union had not complied with the necessary statutory requirements for conducting the ballot. The court found that the union had failed to provide Graincorp with adequate notice of the ballot, thereby breaching procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court determined that the ballot did not contain sufficient information for employees to make an informed decision about participating in protected action. As a result, the court ruled that the union's proposed ballot was unlawful and ordered it to be halted. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and ensuring transparency and fairness in the process of organising protected industrial action.

National Union of Workers v Graincorp Foods 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