DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd
(B2019/403)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 MAY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd.

[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 Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 21 May 2019, 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 Deeana Predic 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 PR708537.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought proceedings against Mayne Pharma International Pty Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, challenging the company's proposed protected action ballot of its employees. The union claimed that the ballot was not a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute, as required by section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot met the statutory requirements for a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute.

The Commission examined the process and purpose behind the proposed ballot. The company argued that the ballot was necessary to ascertain the views of the employees regarding a proposed enterprise agreement. However, the union contended that the ballot was merely a tactic to delay the negotiation process and did not represent a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute. The Commission assessed the evidence and considered whether the ballot was a genuine attempt to resolve the industrial dispute or an attempt to circumvent the negotiation process.

In its decision, the Commission determined that the proposed ballot did not constitute a genuine attempt to resolve an industrial dispute. The Commission found that the company's actions were more aligned with delaying the negotiation process rather than genuinely attempting to resolve the dispute. The Commission held that the proposed ballot did not meet the statutory requirements under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Consequently, the Commission rejected the company's proposal for a ballot and directed the parties to continue the negotiation process.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the company was required to cease its proposed ballot and instead engage in further negotiations with the union to resolve the industrial dispute. The Commission's ruling reinforced the importance of genuine attempts to resolve industrial disputes and the need for compliance with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009.

National Union of Workers v Mayne Pharma International 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