DECISION

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

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
v
Metcash Trading Limited (the holding company of Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd) T/A Australian Liquor Marketers
(B2018/477)

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 18 JUNE 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Metcash Trading Limited (the holding company of Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd) T/A Australian Liquor Marketers.

[1] This is an application by The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (the SDA) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Metcash Trading Limited (the holding company of Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd) T/A Australian Liquor Marketers (Metcash Trading).

[2] On 15 June 2018, the Commission wrote to Metcash Trading seeking its position on the application and requested advice if the matter was to be contested. The Commission has subsequently been advised that Metcash Trading does not oppose the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] I have considered all of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr Joshua Peak of the SDA setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with Metcash Trading and confirming that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the respondent employer. I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, there is a valid application made pursuant to s.437, and that all of the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met. Accordingly, I am obliged to issue an order in this matter.

[5] An order in conformity with the Act is being issued in conjunction with this decision. 1

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR608151.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association versus Metcash Trading Limited, the Court was asked to determine the validity of a proposed industrial action ballot conducted by the Association on behalf of its members, employees of Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Metcash Trading Limited. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of the ballot process and its adherence to relevant industrial laws.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Association had acted within its rights when organising the ballot, particularly focusing on whether the ballot complied with the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. The Court was required to examine if the Association had appropriately notified the relevant parties and if the ballot process was conducted in good faith and without procedural unfairness. The Court also needed to consider if the ballot was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.

The Court found that the Association's actions in organising the ballot were procedurally fair and in compliance with the Fair Work Act. The Court noted that the Association had adequately notified the necessary parties and conducted the ballot in good faith. The Court emphasised that the Association had a legitimate interest in ensuring its members' rights and conditions were protected. Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of the ballot and ruled in favour of the Association. The Court's decision provided clarity on the procedural requirements for organising industrial action ballots, reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness in such processes.

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v Metcash Trading Limited (the holding company of Australian Liquor Marketers Pty Ltd) T/A Australian Liquor Marketers

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established