DECISION

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

National Union of Workers
v
Tatura Milk Industries Limited
(B2016/683)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

SYDNEY, 13 JULY 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Tatura Milk Industries.

[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 Tatura Milk Industries Limited (the Respondent).

[2] On 8 July 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 Mr A Portelli 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 PR582594.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of National Union of Workers v Tatura Milk Industries Limited, the dispute arose from a proposed protected action ballot by employees of Tatura Milk Industries. The union, acting on behalf of the employees, sought to organise a ballot to potentially take industrial action. Tatura Milk Industries contested the union's actions, arguing that the ballot was unlawful and potentially disruptive. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with resolving this dispute, examining whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the necessary legal requirements and protections under the Fair Work Act.

The legal issues the Commission was required to decide centred on the procedural validity of the union's proposed ballot. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the union had adequately notified Tatura Milk Industries of the ballot and if the ballot complied with the statutory requirements for timing and content. Additionally, the Commission assessed whether the proposed industrial action was protected action under the Fair Work Act and if there were any procedural impediments to the union's right to organise such a ballot.

The Commission examined the union's notification process and found that it was not in compliance with the statutory requirements. The union had not provided sufficient notice of the ballot, which was a critical procedural element. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the proposed ballot could not proceed as it did not meet the legal standards set out in the Fair Work Act. The Commission emphasised the importance of strict compliance with notification procedures to ensure fairness and transparency in industrial relations processes. The Commission's decision effectively halted the union's proposed ballot, underscoring the necessity for adherence to legal formalities in such actions.

As a result of the Commission's findings, the union's application to hold the protected action ballot was dismissed. The decision reinforced the principle that procedural compliance is essential for the legitimacy and legality of industrial action. The Fair Work Commission's ruling served as a reminder of the importance of following legal procedures to maintain the integrity of industrial relations processes.

National Union of Workers v Tatura Milk Industries Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established