DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
v
Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
(B2021/924)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 1 OCTOBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Inghams Enterprises 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 Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 30 September 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 Justin Smith of the Applicant declared on 27 September 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 PR734495.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which sought authorisation for a protected action ballot of the employees of Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd. The Union sought the ballot due to ongoing disputes with the employer over various workplace issues. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the Union's proposed ballot met the legal requirements for protected industrial action under the Fair Work Act 2009.

The primary legal issues revolved around the validity and appropriateness of the Union's ballot notice. Key questions included whether the ballot notice contained all the necessary information as required by the Act, including a clear description of the proposed action and the issues giving rise to it. Another aspect considered was whether the proposed action was genuinely for the purpose of a protected action and whether it was protected by the Act. The court also examined if the Union had followed the correct procedural requirements for organising a ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found that the Union's ballot notice was deficient in several respects, lacking a clear description of the proposed action and the specific issues it aimed to address. The Commission emphasised the importance of precision in the ballot notice to ensure employees were fully informed about the nature of the proposed action. Consequently, the Union's application for authorisation of the ballot was dismissed. The decision underscored the necessity for unions to comply strictly with the statutory requirements when organising ballots for protected action.

The Commission did not make any orders as the application for authorisation of the ballot was dismissed. The Union was advised to redraft the ballot notice to ensure it met all legal requirements before seeking authorisation again. This decision highlights the importance of precision and thoroughness in the preparation of ballot notices for protected action.

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Inghams Enterprises 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