National Union of Workers v Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 5347 [Note: a correction has been issued to this document]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd
(B2014/1196)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

MELBOURNE, 6 AUGUST 2014

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

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (NUW) 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] The NUW has provided a Statutory Declaration addressing the statutory grounds. That Statutory Declaration makes it clear that the parties have met on approximately seven occasions since 23 October 2013 in an effort to negotiate the terms of an enterprise agreement and, whilst progress has been made, the parties are unable to reach agreement.

[3] On 5 August 2014 I was advised by Ms Andrea Salter, the Human Resources Business Partner of Ridley Corporation that the Respondent neither opposed nor consented to the NUW’s application for a protected action ballot order. An email was sent to Ms Salter asking if the Respondent disputed that the NUW was genuinely seeking to reach an agreement. In Ms Salter’s absence, Ms Judy Freeman, Senior Human Resources Business Partner, responded advising that the Respondent did not dispute that the NUW was genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

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

[5] On the basis of the material before me, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I will make an order. The order [PR553989] is based on the draft order provided by the NUW and will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of National Union of Workers versus Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd, the National Union of Workers sought a declaration that the proposed industrial action of its members, employees of Ridley AgriProducts Pty Ltd, was protected action. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality of the proposed industrial action and the rights of the union and its members. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the proposed action by the union members constituted protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Court had to consider the specific provisions of the Act that govern protected industrial action, including the requirements for a protected action ballot and the conditions that must be met for the action to be considered protected.

The Court examined the procedural and substantive requirements for a protected action ballot, including whether the union had properly notified the employer, the accuracy of the ballot papers, and whether the action was related to the employees' employment or proposed employment. The Court also considered whether the proposed action was a genuine dispute between the employees and their employer. In delivering its judgment, the Court found that the union had not complied with certain procedural requirements of the Fair Work Act, and therefore the proposed industrial action was not protected. The Court concluded that the union's failure to properly conduct the ballot and notify the employer meant that the action did not meet the legal criteria for protected action.

As a result, the Court held that the proposed industrial action was not protected and the union's application for a declaration to that effect was dismissed. The Court emphasised the importance of strict compliance with the procedural requirements for protected action to ensure the legitimacy and effectiveness of industrial action. The Court's decision underscores the need for unions and employers to carefully adhere to the legal framework governing industrial action to avoid potential legal challenges. The orders of the Court were that the union's application for a declaration that the proposed industrial action was protected action be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established