DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited
(B2017/922)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 6 OCTOBER 2017

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited.

[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 Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 6 October 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 Mr D Melling 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 PR596627.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers initiated proceedings against Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute centred around a proposed industrial action ballot of the company’s employees. The union aimed to conduct a ballot to gauge employee support for potential protected actions, including strikes and stoppages, in the context of ongoing industrial negotiations. Murray Goulburn contested the ballot, asserting that the union had not satisfied the requirements for a lawful ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issues before the Commission involved whether the union had correctly followed the statutory procedures for conducting a protected action ballot. This included whether the union had provided the requisite notice to the employer, whether the ballot notice and accompanying materials were clear and fair, and whether the union had acted in good faith throughout the process. Additionally, the Commission had to consider whether the proposed industrial action was genuinely related to existing industrial disputes.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had not strictly adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. The Commission noted deficiencies in the notice provided to the employer and the clarity of the ballot materials. It was held that the union had not demonstrated that it had acted in good faith, as required by the Act. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot could not proceed as it did not meet the statutory criteria. The Commission emphasised the importance of strict compliance with the legislative framework governing protected industrial actions to ensure fairness and clarity in industrial relations processes.

The Commission ordered that the proposed ballot be halted and that the union and the employer return to negotiations in good faith to resolve the underlying industrial dispute. This ruling underscored the necessity for unions to meticulously follow legal requirements to maintain the legitimacy and effectiveness of their actions.

National Union of Workers v Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established