DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd
(B2016/837)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 4 AUGUST 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd.

[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 Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 4 August 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 H Miflin 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 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 PR583723.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The National Union of Workers filed a case against Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd, challenging the company's refusal to allow a proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected action. The dispute centred on the company's stance that the proposed ballot did not comply with the requirements of the relevant industrial law. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, which has jurisdiction over industrial disputes in Australia.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the union had correctly followed the procedures for initiating a ballot of employees regarding protected action and whether the company's refusal to facilitate the ballot was justified. The Commission needed to determine if the union's ballot notice met the statutory requirements and if the company's refusal to conduct the ballot was reasonable under the circumstances.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union had properly followed the necessary procedures for initiating a ballot of employees regarding protected action. The Commission determined that the union's ballot notice was compliant with the relevant industrial law and that the company's refusal to facilitate the ballot was not justified. The Commission concluded that the union's request was legitimate and that the company was obligated to allow the ballot to proceed as per the law. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures for protected actions and the role of the Commission in resolving such disputes.

The Commission ordered Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd to facilitate the proposed ballot of its employees regarding protected action, as requested by the union. The company was directed to comply with the Commission's decision and to allow the ballot to proceed in accordance with the relevant industrial laws. This decision reinforced the rights of employees to organise and engage in protected actions, subject to the proper procedural requirements being met.

National Union of Workers v Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established