DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Nestlé Australia Ltd
(B2019/748)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN

SYDNEY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nestlé Australia Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Nestlé Australia Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 9 September 2019, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Garry Cripps of the NUW declared on 5 September 2019, setting out the steps taken by them in bargaining with the Respondent and that they have been, and are, 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 PR712139.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of National Union of Workers v Nestlé Australia Ltd, the dispute involved a proposed ballot of employees regarding protected action, which Nestlé sought to prevent. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, an Australian workplace relations tribunal.

The legal issues central to the case were whether the ballot proposed by the National Union of Workers complied with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009, and if Nestlé's objections to the ballot were valid. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the ballot notice was adequately specific and whether there was a genuine dispute or disagreement about workplace matters, as required by the legislation.

The Commission found that the ballot notice provided by the union was sufficiently clear and detailed to meet the statutory requirements. The ballot addressed specific issues related to workplace conditions, which qualified as genuine workplace disagreements. Furthermore, the Commission dismissed Nestlé's objections, concluding that the ballot did not unfairly target the company and was a legitimate exercise of employees' rights under the Act. Consequently, the Commission authorised the union to proceed with the ballot as proposed.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the proposed ballot by the National Union of Workers could proceed, dismissing Nestlé Australia Ltd's objections. The Commission's decision affirmed the union's right to conduct the ballot in accordance with the statutory provisions, ensuring that the employees' right to engage in protected action was upheld.

National Union of Workers v Nestlé Australia Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established