DECISION

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

United Voice
v
Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Limited
(B2019/1220)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 OCTOBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd.

[1] This is an application by the United Voice (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 21 October 2019, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[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 Mr L Orr of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and 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 s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR713569

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

United Voice brought an application against Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Limited seeking a declaration that it had failed to provide requisite information about the proposed industrial action to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The application was brought under section 236 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, Goodman Fielder, opposed the application. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court considered the obligations of an employer under the Fair Work Act when an employee organisation proposes protected action. The legal issue was whether Goodman Fielder had provided United Voice with the requisite information as required by the legislation. The primary consideration was whether the information provided by Goodman Fielder was sufficient and whether it complied with the requirements of the Act.

The court found that Goodman Fielder had not provided all the information required by the Act. It held that there was insufficient information provided about the proposed industrial action. Consequently, the court found that Goodman Fielder had failed to provide the requisite information to United Voice, and thus was in breach of its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The court granted the relief sought by United Voice.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia ordered that Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Limited provide the requisite information to United Voice and comply with its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The court also ordered Goodman Fielder to pay United Voice's costs of the application.

United Voice v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established