DECISION

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

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
v
Cannon Hill Services Pty Limited T/A Australian Country Choice
(B2020/415)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 6 AUGUST 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Limited T/A Australian Country Choice.

[1] This is an application by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Limited T/A Australian Country Choice (Respondent).

[2] On 5 August 2020, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr James Peter Cottrell-Dormer of the Applicant declared on 4 August 2020, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and are, 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 PR721586.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union sought a declaration that a proposed industrial action ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Limited, trading as Australian Country Choice, was not authorised by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The union argued that the ballot was not authorised because it did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The union contended that the ballot was not authorised because it did not provide the requisite 28 days' notice of the proposed protected action, and because the ballot did not specify the type of protected action that the employees were being asked to vote on.

The court had to decide whether the ballot complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the ballot provided the requisite 28 days' notice of the proposed protected action, and whether the ballot specified the type of protected action that the employees were being asked to vote on. The court held that the ballot did not comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act. The court found that the ballot did not provide the requisite 28 days' notice of the proposed protected action, and that the ballot did not specify the type of protected action that the employees were being asked to vote on. The court declared that the proposed industrial action ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Limited was not authorised by the Fair Work Act.

The court's decision provides clarity on the requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act. The decision highlights the importance of providing the requisite notice and specifying the type of protected action in a ballot. The decision also reinforces the need for employers to ensure that their industrial action ballots comply with the requirements of the Fair Work Act.

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Cannon Hill Services Pty Limited T/A Australian Country Choice

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established