The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v Teys Australia Southern Pty Ltd

[2018] FWC 3243

[2018] FWC 3243

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

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

(B2018/397)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE SYDNEY, 5 JULY 2018

Application for a majority support determination.

1. On 22 May 2018, The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (the AMIEU) made an application under s. 236 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to make a majority support determination. 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 operations (relevant employees).

1. The matter was listed for proceedings before the Commission on 6 June 2018. At these proceedings the AMIEU was represented by Ms P Fernandez together with Mr J Schultz. Ms S Taylor together with Ms J Raikuna - Jones, appeared for the employer via video link to Brisbane.

1. Mr Schultz and Ms Fernandez referred to material contained in the application as the grounds in support of the making of a majority support determination. Further, prior to the proceedings held on 6 June, the AMIEU had provided the Commission with a confidential petition (the petition) signed by persons who were asserted to be relevant employees indicating that they wanted to bargain for an enterprise agreement with the employer.

1. Ms Taylor referred to a list of names (employee list) of all of the relevant employees that the employer had provided to the Commission on a confidential basis for the purposes of enabling the Commission to determine whether or not the petition established that a majority of the relevant employees wanted to bargain for an enterprise agreement with the employer. Ms Taylor also advised that in the event that the petition did establish that a majority of relevant employees wanted to bargain for an enterprise agreement with the employer, the employer would oppose the application on other grounds which in general terms, included an anticipated challenge to the veracity and/or integrity of the petition.

1. During the proceedings held on 6 June, it was established that the Commission should first undertake an analysis of the petition so as to determine whether a numerical majority of relevant employees wanted to bargain for an enterprise agreement with the employer, and then, only in the event that such a majority appeared to exist, would it be necessary for the Commission to provide for further opportunity for the employer to be heard in respect to any further opposition to the application.

1. The Commission also identified that the petition contained a large number of names which were difficult to verify. Consequently, the AMIEU undertook to endeavour to provide payroll numbers for individuals whose names appeared on the petition as a means to clarify and confirm the identity of the particular individuals.    

1. The Commission has carefully examined the petition, including some additional names provided by the AMIEU following the proceedings held on 6 June. The identifiable names and payroll numbers on the (expanded) petition have been cross-checked against the names and payroll numbers appearing on the employee list. This process has been assisted by the subsequent provision of payroll numbers in addition to the names of relevant employees. However, the petition contains a number of duplications which have not been double counted, and despite the inclusion of payroll numbers, various names cannot be clearly identified when checked against the employee list.

1. As a result of the Commission’s analysis of the identifiable names and payroll numbers on the (expanded) petition when cross-checked with the names and payroll numbers appearing on the employee list, there is not a clear majority of identified relevant employees who have signed the petition.

1. Therefore, as the requirements of subsection 237 (2) (a) of the Act have not been satisfied the application must be refused.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR607791>