DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.236 - Application for a majority support determination

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union
v
Teys Australia Southern Pty Ltd
(B2018/710)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2018

Application for a majority support determination.

[1] On 13 August 2018, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (the AMIEU) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for a majority support determination pursuant to section 236 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application sought a determination in respect to members of the AMIEU employed by Teys Australia Southern Pty Ltd (the employer) at its Wagga Wagga site, and who work in all tasks associated with processing livestock including slaughtering, boning, slicing, labouring, packaging, cold storage, storage, cleaning and kindred tasks (relevant employees).

[2] The matter was listed for proceedings before the Commission on 27 August 2018. At these proceedings the AMIEU was represented by Mr J Schultz together with Ms D Sully. The employer was represented by Ms S Taylor, Organisational Development Manager for the employer.

[3] Mr Schultz referred to the material provided with the application as the grounds in support of the making of a majority support determination. Mr Schultz submitted that the copies of the exchange of communications between the AMIEU and the employer which were included with the application, clearly established the recent history of attempts to initiate enterprise bargaining in respect to the relevant employees.

[4] On 30 August 2018, the AMIEU provided the Commission with a petition signed by numerous individuals who were asserted to be relevant employees who had signed the petition indicating that they wanted to bargain for an enterprise agreement with the employer.

[5] On 31 August 2018, the employer provided the Commission with a list of names of all of the relevant employees for the purposes of enabling the Commission to determine whether or not the petition provided by the AMIEU, established that a majority of the relevant employees wanted to bargain for an enterprise agreement with the employer.

[6] The Commission has carefully examined the petition provided by the AMIEU and cross-checked the signatories against the list of relevant employees provided by the employer. Despite the petition containing two apparent duplications, and eight names which cannot be clearly identified, there is nevertheless, a clear majority of identified relevant employees who have signed the petition.

[7] Consequently, the Commission is satisfied that; (a), a majority of the relevant employees want to bargain, and (b), the employer has not yet agreed to bargain, and (c), the group that comprises the relevant employees has been fairly chosen taking into account the geographical, operational and organisational distinction of that group, and (d), that it is reasonable in all circumstances to make the majority support determination. Therefore the relevant requirements of ss. 236 and 237 of the Act have been met and the application must be granted.

[8] Consequently, the Commission has separately issued a majority support determination.

[9] This majority support determination operates on and from today, 27 September 2018.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union sought a majority support determination in relation to an enterprise agreement with Teys Australia Southern Pty Ltd. The union sought to have the agreement recognised as applicable to all employees in the bargaining unit, despite a lower than 50% overall vote in favour of the agreement. The union argued that the low level of support was due to an improper campaign by the employer and a lack of understanding among the workforce of the implications of the agreement. Teys Australia Southern Pty Ltd opposed the application, arguing that the union had not demonstrated majority support for the agreement and that the application should be dismissed.

The Commission considered whether the union had demonstrated majority support for the agreement, and whether the low level of support could be attributed to improper conduct by the employer or a lack of understanding by the workforce. The Commission noted that the union had not provided evidence of improper conduct by the employer, and that the low level of support was likely due to a lack of understanding among the workforce of the implications of the agreement. The Commission also considered the importance of ensuring that any enterprise agreement has the support of the majority of employees in the bargaining unit. Ultimately, the Commission determined that the union had not demonstrated majority support for the agreement, and dismissed the application.

The Commission found that the union had not demonstrated majority support for the agreement, and that the application should be dismissed. The Commission noted that the low level of support was likely due to a lack of understanding among the workforce of the implications of the agreement, and that the union had not provided evidence of improper conduct by the employer. The Commission emphasised the importance of ensuring that any enterprise agreement has the support of the majority of employees in the bargaining unit, and that the application should only be granted where there is clear evidence of majority support.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed the union's application for a majority support determination. The Commission found that the union had not demonstrated majority support for the agreement, and that the low level of support was likely due to a lack of understanding among the workforce of the implications of the agreement. The Commission also found that the union had not provided evidence of improper conduct by the employer, and that the application should be dismissed.

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v Teys Australia Southern 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