[2013] FWC 4044 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.236—Majority support determination
National Union of Workers
v
Stay in Bed Milk and Bread Pty Ltd T/A Aussie Farmers Direct.
(B2013/971)
COMMISSIONER GREGORY | MELBOURNE, 21 JUNE 2013 |
[1] This matter concerns an application by the National Union of Workers (the Applicant) pursuant to s.236 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a majority support determination. It concerns employees of Stay in Bed Milk and Bread Pty Ltd T/A Aussie Farmers Direct (the Respondent) employed in its warehouse operation at Clayton in Victoria. Mr A. Portelli from the National Union of Workers appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Mr D. Proietto from Lander and Rogers was granted leave to appear on behalf of the Respondent pursuant to s.596 of the Act on the basis his involvement would enable the matter to be dealt with more effectively, given the complexity of the matters, and the ability of the Respondent to otherwise be able to represent itself effectively.
[2] During the proceedings it became evident that changes in the workforce at Clayton and, indeed, changes in the wording of a petition relied upon by the Applicant raised real issues about whether the Commission was able to be satisfied, as it must, pursuant to s.237(2) of the Act that a majority of the employees to be covered by the proposed agreement want to bargain. Given that situation the Applicant supported the matter being adjourned to enable it to review the evidence it sought to rely upon in regard to that aspect of its application.
[3] The Respondent indicated in response its preferred position was that the application be dismissed.
[4] Having considered the submissions of the parties I have decided that the matter will be adjourned for a period of 14 days from the date of this decision. It will be relisted again for hearing at short notice if a request is made by the Applicant for relisting within that 14 day period. If no such request is received within that period the application will be dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
A. Portelli of the National Union of Workers on behalf of the Applicant.
D. Proietto of Lander and Rodgers on behalf of the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2013.
Melbourne:
21 June.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR538122>
- AGLC
- National Union of Workers v Stay in Bed Milk and Bread Pty Ltd T/A Aussie Farmers Direct [2013] FWC 4044
- Case
- [2013] FWC 4044
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court was whether the National Union of Workers had demonstrated that a majority of the employees supported the union's application for recognition. This required an analysis of the evidence provided by the union in support of their claim, including the signatures of employees in support of the application. The court also needed to consider any objections raised by the employer and assess the legitimacy of the union's claim. The respondent contested the application on various grounds, including the validity of the signatures and the procedures followed by the union in collecting them.
The court reviewed the evidence submitted by the union and found that there was a sufficient number of valid signatures to demonstrate majority support for the union's application. The court examined the procedures followed by the union in gathering signatures and concluded that they were conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The court also considered the employer's objections but found them to be without merit. The court held that the union had met the threshold for a majority support determination and that the union should be recognised as the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees.
In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission determined that the National Union of Workers had successfully demonstrated majority support among the employees of Stay in Bed Milk and Bread Pty Ltd, trading as Aussie Farmers Direct. The union was recognised as the appropriate bargaining agent for the employees, enabling them to negotiate on behalf of the employees in relation to their employment conditions. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the application of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.