DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
Tatura Milk Industries Pty Ltd
(B2019/1178)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 14 OCTOBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Tatura Milk Industries Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the National Union of Workers (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Tatura Milk Industries Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 11 October 2019, 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 T Czech of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, 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 PR713267.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of National Union of Workers versus Tatura Milk Industries Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from the employees of Tatura Milk Industries Pty Ltd seeking to conduct a proposed protected action ballot. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, Australia's workplace relations tribunal. The National Union of Workers, acting on behalf of the employees, sought an authorisation for a ballot to be held to gauge employee sentiment regarding potential protected industrial action. Tatura Milk Industries Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, raising concerns over the proposed process and the potential for disruption to its business operations.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot process complied with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the ballot process proposed by the Union met the procedural standards for protected action as stipulated by the Act. This included whether the ballot notice was sufficiently clear and whether it provided adequate information to employees regarding the nature of the proposed action and the potential consequences.

The Fair Work Commission found that the ballot notice issued by the Union did not comply with the requirements of the Act. The Commission determined that the notice was not clear and did not adequately inform the employees about the specific details of the proposed protected action. As a result, the Commission did not grant the Union's authorisation for the ballot. The Commission emphasised the importance of clear communication and proper procedural adherence in such matters to ensure that employees are fully informed about the potential implications of participating in industrial action.

As the Commission did not grant the authorisation for the ballot, no further action regarding the proposed industrial action was pursued by the employees. The decision underscores the necessity for unions to ensure that any ballot notice they circulate complies with the legal requirements to maintain the legitimacy and effectiveness of the protected action process.

National Union of Workers v Tatura Milk Industries 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