DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Nestle Australia Limited
(B2018/984)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 29 OCTOBER 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nestle Australia Limited.

[1] This decision concerns an application by the National Union of Workers made under s 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Nestle Australia Limited (company).

[2] On 29 October 2018, the company advised my associate that it did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] I have considered the application and statutory declaration of Mr Matt Toner, an Industrial Officer of the Applicant, setting out the steps taken by the Applicant to try to reach agreement with the company.

[5] I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, that the Applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the company, and that the other requirements for the making of a protected action ballot order have been met.

[6] Accordingly, the Commission is required under s 443 of the Act to make a protected action ballot order.

[7] An order has been separately issued in PR701871.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the National Union of Workers versus Nestle Australia Limited, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of a proposed industrial action ballot by employees of Nestle Australia Limited. The National Union of Workers, representing the employees, sought to conduct a protected action ballot to gauge employee support for potential industrial action. Nestle Australia Limited opposed the ballot, arguing that it did not comply with the necessary legal requirements and procedural guidelines.

The central legal issues before the court involved whether the ballot notice issued by the union adhered to the necessary statutory provisions and procedural fairness. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the ballot notice was appropriately issued and if it complied with the requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The court also had to consider whether the union had adequately notified the employer and the relevant employees about the proposed action and provided sufficient information to enable an informed decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the contents of the ballot notice and the process by which it was issued. The court found that the notice did not sufficiently detail the nature and scope of the proposed industrial action, thereby failing to meet the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court ruled that the ballot was invalid as it did not comply with the necessary legal standards. As a result, the union's application to conduct the ballot was dismissed.

The court's decision underscored the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and procedural fairness in the context of industrial action. The final orders of the court mandated that the union could not proceed with the ballot and required the union to ensure that any future ballot notices meet all legal and procedural standards.

National Union of Workers v Nestle Australia Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established