DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Pinnacle Bakery and Integrated Ingredients
(B2016/331)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 3 MARCH 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Pinnacle Bakery and Integrated Ingredients.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Pinnacle Bakery and Integrated Ingredients (the Respondent).

[2] On 3 March 2016 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 Ms A Wyrick of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR577655.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the National Union of Workers initiated proceedings against Pinnacle Bakery and Integrated Ingredients, challenging the company's decision to prevent its employees from participating in a proposed protected action ballot. The dispute arose from the union's intention to organise a ballot to gauge employee support for protected action, which Pinnacle Bakery and Integrated Ingredients opposed, citing operational disruptions and potential breaches of industrial relations laws. The court was tasked with determining whether the union's proposed ballot was a lawful action under the Fair Work Act 2009 and whether the employer had valid grounds to intervene.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the employer could lawfully prevent its employees from participating in the proposed protected action ballot. The court had to assess the balance between the union's right to organise and the employer's rights to maintain business operations. Additionally, the court examined whether the employer's concerns about operational disruption were sufficient to justify restricting the ballot, and whether the employer had followed the correct procedures under the Fair Work Act to challenge the ballot.

The court ruled in favour of the union, finding that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify preventing the ballot. The court emphasised that the right to organise and participate in a protected action ballot is a fundamental aspect of industrial relations, and employers must not interfere with this right unless there are compelling and lawful reasons. The court also noted that the employer's concerns about operational disruption were speculative and did not outweigh the employees' rights to participate in the ballot. Consequently, the court ordered that the employer must allow its employees to participate in the proposed ballot and that any interference by the employer would be unlawful.

The final orders of the court mandated that Pinnacle Bakery and Integrated Ingredients must facilitate the proposed protected action ballot, ensuring that employees are not hindered or coerced in any way. The employer was also directed to comply with all relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act and to refrain from any actions that could be deemed an interference with the union's lawful activities.

National Union of Workers v Pinnacle Bakery and Integrated Ingredients

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established