National Union of Workers v Patties Foods Ltd - [2011] FWA 4103

[2011] FWA 4103

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.229 - Application for a bargaining order

National Union of Workers
v
Patties Foods Ltd
(B2011/3011)

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON

SYDNEY, 1 JULY 2011

Application for a bargaining order - alleged breach of good faith bargaining requirements - whether correspondence is capricious or unfair that undermines freedom of association or collective bargaining - observations concerning communications during bargaining process - no breach of good faith bargaining requirements established - application dismissed - Fair Work Act 2009, ss 228, 229,230.

Introduction

[1] This decision concerns an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW) for orders pursuant to s 229 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The orders are sought against Patties Foods Ltd (Patties) which operates a food manufacturing facility in Bairnsdale Victoria.

[2] The application was heard on 28 June 2011. At the hearing Mr D Melling represented the NUW, Mr B Shaw of counsel represented Patties and Mr T Hale represented the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) which was granted leave to intervene in the matter in support of the NUW’s application. An affidavit of Mr J Pentney the General Manager, People and Organisation of Patties was admitted into evidence without objection.

Background

[3] The facts in this matter are not in dispute. Patties has commenced a bargaining process for a collective enterprise agreement to apply to its Bairnsdale operations. Pursuant to s 173 of the Act it distributed a notice to employees informing them of their representational rights with respect to the negotiations. Employees elected twelve bargaining representatives and the NUW and the AMWU also provided bargaining representatives for their members not otherwise represented in the process.

[4] The first formal bargaining meeting conducted with all parties was on 1 June 2011. At the end of the meeting, representatives of the NUW handed out a letter to non union employee representatives. The letter requested certain information to be provided to the NUW by 3 June 2011. The information requested to be provided was:

A notice concerning their appointment as a bargaining representative compliant with the Act,

A copy of any claims for improvements in wages and/or conditions of employment that the bargaining agent intends to pursue in the bargaining process,

Contact details to facilitate quick and easy communications between the NUW and the employee nominated representatives.

[5] After being issued with the letter an employee representative approached Patties expressing concern about the letter and seeking advice as to what action he should take. Patties sought advice on the matter and distributed a letter to the bargaining representatives. The letter is undated but appears to have been sent on or about 2 June 2011. I will refer to it as the 2 June letter. As the 2 June letter is central to this case I set it out in full:

“Re: NUW Enterprise Bargaining letter to Employee Representatives

I understand that you may have…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading National Union of Workers v Patties Foods Ltd

Details

AGLC: National Union of Workers v Patties Foods Ltd [2011] FWA 4103
Case: [2011] FWA 4103
Decision Date: 1 JULY 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers filed an application against Patties Foods Ltd in the Fair Work Commission, alleging a breach of good faith bargaining requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. The union claimed that the employer's conduct during the bargaining process was capricious or unfair, undermining the freedom of association and collective bargaining. The case centred on the interpretation and application of the good faith bargaining provisions within the statutory framework and the specific conduct of the parties involved.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the employer's actions during the bargaining process constituted a breach of the good faith bargaining requirements. The court examined the nature and content of the communications between the parties, assessing whether these were capricious or unfair. The union argued that certain communications from the employer were inconsistent with the obligations of good faith bargaining, while the employer maintained that its conduct was appropriate and in line with the statutory requirements. The court had to determine if the union's allegations were substantiated and if the employer's conduct indeed violated the principles of good faith bargaining.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the union had not established that the employer's conduct was capricious or unfair, nor that it undermined the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The court detailed the observations concerning the communications during the bargaining process, concluding that the employer's actions did not breach the good faith bargaining requirements. The union's application was dismissed as the evidence did not support the allegations of a breach. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to good faith bargaining obligations and provided clarity on the standards expected from both parties during industrial negotiations.

The court's final orders were that the application for a bargaining order be dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The decision underscored the significance of maintaining good faith in the bargaining process and provided guidance on the acceptable conduct during such negotiations.

Orders