National Union of Workers v Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd Summary

[2018] FWC 4995

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protection action ballot order

National Union of Workers
v

Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd
(IA2018-4597)

Deputy President Gostencnik

MELBOURNE, 29 August 2018

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

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 Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 28 August 2018, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr B Cotterill 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR620278.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission has considered an application by the National Union of Workers against Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The union sought a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Parmalat. On 28 August 2018, the Commission's Associate notified that Parmalat did not object to the application. Consequently, the Deputy President decided to determine the matter on the submitted papers without holding a hearing.

The legal issues before the court involved verifying whether the union had fulfilled the necessary requirements under the Act to proceed with a protected action ballot. Specifically, the court needed to confirm that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Parmalat. The union submitted a statutory declaration from Mr B Cotterill, which outlined the steps taken during the bargaining process and affirmed the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement.

Upon reviewing the materials, the Deputy President found that the union had indeed met the statutory requirements. The declaration provided by Mr Cotterill was deemed sufficient to demonstrate that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement and that there was a notification time for the proposed agreement. Therefore, the Deputy President was satisfied that the union had met the prerequisites for a protected action ballot under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act.

Consequently, the court issued an order in PR620278, allowing the union to proceed with the protected action ballot. This decision ensures that the union's application was properly assessed, and the requirements for such an action were appropriately verified.

National Union of Workers v Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established