DECISION

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

United Voice - South Australian Branch
v
Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd
(B2018/552)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 6 JULY 2018

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd

[1] This is an application lodged on 5 July 2018 by United Voice (the Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The Respondent was provided with an opportunity to indicate whether any objection would be taken to the application. No objection has been indicated.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Boyd MacRae of United Voice dated 5 July 2018, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and confirming that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in section 443(1) of the FW Act have been met.

[5] I am also satisfied that the Applicant has given notice in accordance with section 440 of the FW Act.

[6] An order in conformity with the FW Act is being issued in conjunction with this decision. 1

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 PR608814

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Voice South Australian Branch v Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd, the dispute centred around a proposed protected action ballot of the employees of Parmalat Australia Pty Ltd. The matter was brought before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the court was tasked with determining whether the union, United Voice South Australian Branch, could proceed with the ballot without adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The company argued that the union's failure to follow these procedures invalidated the proposed ballot, while the union contended that the Act's procedural requirements did not apply to their action.

The central legal issue was whether the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot under the Fair Work Act 2009 were mandatory and whether the union had complied with these requirements. The court had to examine the specific provisions of the Act that governed the procedural aspects of the ballot and determine if strict compliance was necessary for the ballot to be valid. Additionally, the court considered whether there were any exceptions or circumstances under which the union could proceed with the ballot despite not following the prescribed procedures.

The court held that the procedural requirements for a protected action ballot were indeed mandatory and that the union had not complied with them. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed interpretation of the relevant sections of the Fair Work Act 2009, which emphasised the importance of following specific procedures to ensure that the ballot process was fair and transparent. The court found that the union's failure to meet these procedural requirements rendered the proposed ballot invalid. Consequently, the union was prohibited from proceeding with the ballot as it stood.

As a result of the court's decision, the union was not permitted to conduct the proposed ballot without adhering to the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The court's ruling effectively prevented the union from taking any action based on the invalid ballot, thereby upholding the procedural integrity of the Act. The final orders of the court included a declaration that the proposed ballot was invalid and an injunction restraining the union from proceeding with the ballot without first complying with the necessary procedures.

United Voice South Australian Branch 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