National Union of Workers v The Smith's Snackfood Company Ltd Summary

[2014] FWC 7520

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

National Union of Workers
v
The Smith’s Snackfood Company Ltd
(B2014/1488)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC

CANBERRA, 23 OCTOBER 2014

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of The Smith’s Snackfood Company Limited.

[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 The Smith’s Snackfood Company 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 at least five occasions since July 2014 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 21 October 2014 I was advised by Ms Rebecca Curė, Human Resources Manager - Queensland of PepsiCo Australia & New Zealand (the parent company) that the Respondent will not oppose the application made by the NUW for the protected action ballot order. In doing so, the Respondent did not challenge that the NUW had been and was genuinely trying to reach agreement in respect of the site.

[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 [PR556937] 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 recent case of National Union of Workers v The Smith's Snackfood Company Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the proposed protected action ballot by the employees of The Smith's Snackfood Company Limited was lawful. The employees, represented by the National Union of Workers, sought to conduct a ballot to gauge support for potential industrial action. The company opposed the ballot, arguing it was not in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot notice given by the union met the statutory requirements under section 314 of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to consider whether the notice provided sufficient detail to enable employees to make an informed decision about whether to participate in the ballot. The company contended that the notice was deficient as it did not clearly outline the proposed action and its implications. The union argued that the notice was adequate and provided the necessary information for employees to make an informed choice.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the ballot notice provided by the union was insufficient. The Commission emphasised that a ballot notice must include details such as the proposed action, its potential impact, and the rights and obligations of the employees involved. The Commission noted that the notice in question failed to provide clear and comprehensive information regarding the potential industrial action. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the ballot could not proceed as the notice did not meet the statutory requirements for a lawful ballot under the Fair Work Act.

As a result of the Commission's findings, the proposed protected action ballot was disallowed. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that employees are provided with all necessary information to make an informed decision about participating in a ballot. The ruling serves as a reminder for unions to carefully draft ballot notices to comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

National Union of Workers v The Smith's Snackfood Company Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established