DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union
v
Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd
(B2019/1279)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 11 NOVEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Rivalea (Australia) 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 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] 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 Mark Andrew Perkins of the Applicant 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 PR714151.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union versus Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission was presented with a dispute concerning a proposed protected action ballot by the employees of Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd. The employees, represented by The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, sought to conduct a ballot to potentially authorise industrial action in pursuit of their workplace claims. The employer, Rivalea (Australia) Pty Ltd, contested the ballot on various grounds, including the appropriateness of the subject matter and the procedural compliance.

The central legal issue the Commission had to address was whether the proposed ballot related to a protected action and whether it complied with the requisite procedural requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine if the subject matter of the ballot was a "protected action", as defined by the Act, and whether the ballot complied with the procedural prerequisites for a protected action ballot. This involved an assessment of the union's claim and the procedural steps taken by the union in seeking to conduct the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission ruled that the proposed ballot did indeed relate to a protected action, as it concerned matters related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment. However, the Commission found that the ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements under the Act. Notably, the Commission identified deficiencies in the notice provided to the employer regarding the ballot, which was not in line with the statutory obligations. Consequently, the Commission disallowed the proposed ballot, finding it to be procedurally invalid.

The Commission's decision was based on the statutory requirements for conducting a ballot for protected action and the procedural steps that must be followed. As a result, the employer's objection to the ballot was upheld, and the employees were not permitted to proceed with the proposed ballot as it did not meet the necessary procedural standards.

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Rivalea (Australia) 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