DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd
(B2017/861)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

PERTH, 19 SEPTEMBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (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 Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 19 September 2017 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 Ms A Thwaites 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 PR596228.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers brought a case against Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd in relation to a proposed industrial action ballot of employees. The Union claimed that Mondelez failed to provide necessary information to facilitate a lawful ballot of its members. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving this dispute.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Mondelez was required to provide specific information to the Union to enable the lawful conduct of a ballot of its members under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Court needed to determine the scope and nature of the information obligations that employers must meet in relation to industrial action ballots.

The Court found that Mondelez did not have an obligation to provide the Union with specific information beyond what was already required by law. The Court emphasised that the Act does not impose an obligation on employers to furnish detailed operational information to unions. Instead, the Court held that the Act's requirements were met if the employer provided information that was reasonably necessary for the lawful conduct of the ballot. The Court rejected the Union's argument that Mondelez had to disclose more detailed operational information, finding that such a requirement would impose an undue burden on employers. The Court's decision was based on a careful interpretation of the statutory provisions and their legislative intent.

Mondelez was ordered to pay the Union's costs of the proceeding. The Court's ruling clarified the scope of information obligations for employers in relation to industrial action ballots, providing a degree of certainty for both employers and unions in this area of industrial relations law.

National Union of Workers v Mondelez 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