DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Transport Workers’ Union of Australia
v
Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd
(B2015/1469)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE

SYDNEY, 21 OCTOBER 2015

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU). It seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd (Parmalat).

[2] Parmalat 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 TWU filed a statement. The statement was made by Jelena Cindric, an official of the TWU, New South Wales Branch. The statement was dated 13 October 2015.

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

[5] An order [PR573123] based on the draft order provided by the TWU is issued in conjunction with this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the Fair Work Commission was initiated by the Transport Workers' Union of Australia against Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd. The union sought to organise a protected action ballot among the employees of Parmalat, aiming to secure a favourable outcome in ongoing industrial negotiations. Parmalat contested the union's right to conduct the ballot and the process by which the union intended to carry out the ballot. The case was brought to the Fair Work Commission to resolve these industrial relations issues.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether the union was entitled to conduct a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009. Parmalat argued that the union's proposed ballot process was flawed and did not comply with the requirements of the Act, particularly concerning the timing and method of communication with the employees. The union contended that the ballot was lawful and necessary to protect the employees' rights in the industrial dispute.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission found that the union's proposed ballot was lawful and could proceed. The Commission determined that the union had correctly identified a genuine industrial dispute and that the ballot was an appropriate means to allow employees to express their views. The Commission rejected Parmalat's arguments regarding the ballot's timing and communication method, holding that the union had adhered to the necessary procedural requirements. The union was thus permitted to proceed with the ballot as planned.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union's proposed protected action ballot could proceed in accordance with the union's plan. The Commission did not impose any further conditions on the conduct of the ballot, thereby allowing the union to organise the vote as intended.

Transport Workers' Union of Australia v Parmalat 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