DECISION

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

United Voice
v
Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mondelez International
(B2019/1259)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON

ADELAIDE, 30 OCTOBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mondelez International

[1] This is an application lodged on 29 October 2019 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 Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mondelez International (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 dated 29 October 2019, 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 PR713845

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Voice v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mondelez International was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the union United Voice sought to conduct a ballot among the employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd regarding potential protected action. The employer contested the union's application, raising concerns about the timing and the union's compliance with procedural requirements.

The legal issues centred around whether the union had complied with the necessary procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the union's application for a ballot was lodged in good faith, whether the union had provided the employer with the requisite information, and whether the ballot was to be held at an appropriate time. The employer argued that the ballot was improperly timed and that the union had failed to provide sufficient information to the employer.

The Fair Work Commission found that the union's application was made in good faith and that the procedural requirements had been substantially complied with. The Commission emphasised that the timing of the ballot was appropriate given the context of ongoing industrial disputes. The Commission also found that the union had adequately informed the employer, and thus, the application should proceed. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, allowing the ballot to proceed as sought.

The final orders included a directive to Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd to facilitate the ballot process as requested by United Voice, ensuring that the necessary information was provided to the employees and that the process was conducted in an orderly and timely manner. The employer was also required to allow the union to access the workplace to inform employees about the ballot.

United Voice v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd T/A Mondelez International

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established