The Australian Workers' Union v Unilever Australia Trading Limited Summary

[2013] FWC 2239

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

The Australian Workers' Union
v
Unilever Australia Trading Limited
(B2013/85)

COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 12 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited (the Employer).

[2] The Employer advised that it does not oppose the application. Accordingly I have determined the matter on the basis of the documentation filed.

[3] In support of the application, the AWU filed a statement dated 11 April 2013 made by Mr Scott Bean, an Organiser of the AWU.

[4] For the purposes of s.443(1)(b) of the Act, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged position of the AWU, that the AWU has been and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Employer.

[5] An order [PR535636] based on the draft order provided by the AWU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Australian Workers' Union sought to conduct a ballot of employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited to determine whether the employees would support protected action, such as a strike, in response to proposed changes in their employment terms and conditions. The dispute was brought before the Fair Work Commission. The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot was a protected action under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to determine whether the proposed ballot related to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees and whether it was being conducted in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

The Commission found that the proposed ballot did relate to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees, as it was being conducted in response to proposed changes in those terms and conditions. The Commission also found that the ballot was being conducted in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The Commission rejected Unilever's argument that the proposed ballot was not a protected action because it did not relate to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. The Commission found that the proposed changes to the employees' terms and conditions of employment were significant and that the proposed ballot was an appropriate means of determining whether the employees supported protected action in response to those changes.

As a result of the Commission's decision, the Australian Workers' Union was permitted to conduct the proposed ballot of employees of Unilever Australia Trading Limited. The Commission found that the proposed ballot was a protected action under the Fair Work Act and that it should be permitted to proceed. The Commission also rejected Unilever's argument that the proposed ballot should be prohibited because it would cause significant economic harm to the company. The Commission found that the potential economic harm to Unilever did not outweigh the importance of protecting the employees' right to engage in protected action in response to changes in their terms and conditions of employment. The Commission's decision was a victory for the Australian Workers' Union and its members, who were able to exercise their legal right to engage in protected action in response to changes in their employment terms and conditions.

The Australian Workers' Union v Unilever Australia Trading Limited

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established