| [2016] FWC 6423 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order
National Union of Workers
v
Turi Foods Pty Ltd T/A Golden Farms
(B2016/955)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | BRISBANE, 7 SEPTEMBER 2016 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Turi Foods Pty Ltd T/A Golden Farms.
[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 Turi Foods Pty Ltd T/A Golden Farms (the Respondent).
[2] On 7 September 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 Snowball 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 PR585161.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR585162>
- AGLC
- National Union of Workers v Turi Foods Pty Ltd T/A Golden Farms [2016] FWC 6423
- Case
- [2016] FWC 6423
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the Commission revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the Commission had to ascertain whether the union's proposed ballot met the requirements for a genuine dispute of interest, and if the union had adhered to the procedural obligations under the Act. The Commission needed to consider the evidence presented by both parties regarding the nature of the dispute, the procedural fairness of the ballot process, and whether the union's actions were consistent with the Act.
The Commission carefully examined the evidence and submissions from both parties. It found that the union's proposed ballot was indeed based on a genuine dispute of interest, as it related to an unresolved issue concerning the employees' terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the union had followed the necessary procedural steps and that the proposed ballot was consistent with the requirements of the Act. Consequently, the Commission upheld the union's right to proceed with the ballot. The Commission's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the legislative framework governing industrial action, while also recognising the rights of unions and employees to engage in lawful and justified industrial activities.
The Fair Work Commission's decision in this case reinforces the procedural safeguards in place to ensure that industrial action is both genuine and lawful. By upholding the union's right to proceed with the ballot, the Commission has affirmed the importance of allowing employees and their representatives to engage in industrial activities when there is a genuine dispute of interest. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder to both employers and unions of the need to navigate the legislative landscape carefully and to respect the rights and obligations set out in the Fair Work Act.
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.