DECISION

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

United Workers' Union
v
Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle
(B2020/326)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Allied Pinnacle Tullamarine Food Manufacturing.

[1] This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 22 June 2020, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr M de Rooy 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 PR720411.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Workers' Union versus Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle involved a dispute regarding a proposed protected action ballot of employees of Allied Pinnacle Tullamarine Food Manufacturing. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought authorisation to conduct a protected action ballot among employees, which was opposed by the employer on various grounds.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the union had provided sufficient information to justify the proposed ballot and whether the employer had adequately responded to the union's claims. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to address workplace issues such as pay rates, rostering, and redundancy concerns. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the union's claims were either unsubstantiated or irrelevant to the ballot's purpose.

The commission found that the union had provided adequate information to warrant the proposed ballot, as it outlined specific workplace issues that warranted employee consultation. The court noted that the employer had not sufficiently addressed the union's claims, which related directly to the proposed ballot's purpose. Consequently, the commission ruled in favour of the union, granting authorisation for the ballot to proceed. The employer was ordered to facilitate the ballot process, ensuring it was conducted in accordance with the Fair Work Act.

United Workers' Union v Allied Pinnacle Pty Limited T/A Allied Pinnacle

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established