DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
v
Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd
(B2021/1044)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 29 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd

[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 Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 27 October 2021, 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 James Peter Cottrell-Dormer of the Applicant declared on 26 October 2021, 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 PR735360.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd in relation to a proposed protected action. Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd opposed the ballot, claiming it was unlawful under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which was required to determine whether the ballot was lawful and whether it should be permitted to proceed. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the ballot complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and whether it was in the interests of the parties involved to allow it to proceed.

The Commission found that the ballot did not comply with the notice requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) as the notice did not specify the precise nature of the protected action, the date and place of the ballot, and the names of the authorised persons conducting the ballot. The Commission held that these requirements were mandatory and non-delegable. The Commission further found that the ballot was not in the interests of the parties involved as it was likely to cause significant disruption to the business of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd. The Commission concluded that the ballot was unlawful and should not be permitted to proceed.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the proposed ballot of employees of Cannon Hill Services Pty Ltd was unlawful and should not proceed. The Commission found that the ballot did not comply with the notice requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and that it was not in the interests of the parties involved to allow it to proceed. The Commission's decision was based on its interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and its consideration of the interests of the parties involved. The decision provides guidance on the requirements for a lawful ballot and the factors that the Commission will consider in determining whether a ballot should proceed.

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Cannon Hill Services 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