National Union of Workers v McPherson's Consumer Products

[2016] FWC 6942

[2016] FWC 6942

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
McPherson's Consumer Products
(B2016/1018)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS SYDNEY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of McPherson's Consumer Products Pty Ltd.

[1] On 20 September 2016, the National Union of Workers (‘NUW’ or ‘Union’), lodged an application, pursuant to s 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’), for a protected action ballot of employees of McPherson’s Consumer Products Pty Ltd (the ‘respondent’). The proposed protected action ballot is to cover employees of the respondent who are members of the Union, for whom the Union is a bargaining representative and who work at the respondent’s warehouse in Kingsgrove, New South Wales.

[2] The relevant statutory provisions governing the granting of an application of this kind are set out at s 443 of the Act as follows:

          443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

(2) The FWC must not make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement except in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1).

(3) A protected action ballot order must specify the following:

(a) the name of each applicant for the order;

(b) the group or groups of employees who are to be balloted;

(c) the date by which voting in the protected action ballot closes;

(d) the question or questions to be put to the employees who are to be balloted, including the nature of the proposed industrial action.

(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c), the FWC must specify a date that will enable the protected action ballot to be conducted as expeditiously as practicable.

(4) If the FWC decides that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission is to be the protected action ballot agent for the protected action ballot, the protected action ballot order must also specify:

(a) the person that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(1), is to be the protected action ballot agent; and

(b) the person (if any) that the FWC decides, under subsection 444(3), is to be the independent advisor for the ballot.

(5) If the FWC is satisfied, in relation to the proposed industrial action that is the subject of the protected action ballot, that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the period of written notice referred to in paragraph 414(2)(a) being longer than 3 working days, the protected action ballot order may specify a longer period of up to 7 working days.

[3] In support of the application, the Union relied on a statement of Mr Garry Cripps, an Organiser of the Union, and who represents the employees as part of current duties. He explained that the current enterprise bargaining agreement expired on 30 June 2016. On 4 May 2016 he served a log of claims, endorsed by the Union’s members, on the respondent. He identified 12 dates between 6 May 2016 and 23 September 2016 in which the Union had attended meetings with the respondent in order to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. However, agreement on the major issues of wage increases and redundancy conditions could not be reached and on 15 August 2016, the Union’s members authorised the Union to seek an application for a protected action ballot order.

[4] At a conference with the Commission on 26 September 2016, an agreed way forward to progress negotiations was reached which involved the respondent agreeing not to support or oppose the application for a protected action ballot order. Further undertakings and agreed arrangements were made in a separate document recorded by the Commission.

[5] However, for present purposes, the Commission is satisfied that the application has been made in accordance with the requirements of s 437 of the Act and that the Union is genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted. Given that I am satisfied that ss 443(1)(a) and (b) have been complied with, the Commission must make the protected action ballot order sought by the Union and the application is granted. An order reflecting the terms of the draft order will be published contemporaneously with this decision. It shall take effect on and from 27 September 2016.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR585854>