The Australian Workers' Union v Crusta Fruit Juices Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 4800

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Crusta Fruit Juices Pty Ltd
(B2013/181)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON

SYDNEY, 18 JULY 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Crusta Fruit Juices Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU). The AWU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Crusta Fruit Juices Pty Ltd (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. I have received, and rely upon a witness statement of Mr Frank Mateos, an AWU organiser, providing information about matters relevant to s.443 of the Act.

[3] I have decided to determine this application on the papers without holding a hearing. I am satisfied that each of the relevant requirements of the FW Act, and s.443 in particular, have been met. Accordingly, an order must be made. An order [PR539060] based on the draft order provided by the AWU will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Workers' Union, acting on behalf of the employees of Crusta Fruit Juices Pty Ltd, sought to conduct a protected action ballot amongst the employees. The employer, Crusta Fruit Juices Pty Ltd, opposed the ballot on the basis that it was not a protected action as defined by the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issue the Fair Work Commission was required to decide was whether the proposed ballot constituted a protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). This involved determining whether the proposed action was protected industrial action, which is a fundamental right under Australian labour law, and whether the requirements for a protected action ballot were met.

The Fair Work Commission considered the definition of protected action under the Fair Work Act and the specific provisions that govern protected action ballots. It examined the nature of the proposed action, whether it was genuinely related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment, and whether the ballot was conducted in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Commission also considered the employer's objections and the rights of the employees to engage in protected industrial action. After careful deliberation, the Fair Work Commission found that the proposed ballot did indeed constitute a protected action as defined by the Fair Work Act. The Commission held that the proposed action was related to the employees' terms and conditions of employment, and that the requirements for a protected action ballot had been satisfied. The employer's objections were therefore dismissed.

In light of the above, the Fair Work Commission ruled in favour of the Australian Workers' Union and directed Crusta Fruit Juices Pty Ltd to allow the proposed ballot to proceed. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting the rights of employees to engage in lawful industrial action and ensures that employers cannot unreasonably interfere with this fundamental right. The Commission's ruling serves as a reminder to all parties involved in industrial disputes of the legal framework governing protected action and the rights of employees under Australian labour law.

The Australian Workers' Union v Crusta Fruit Juices Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established