DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Americold Logistics Limited
(B2021/26)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 22 JANUARY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Americold Logistics Limited.

[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 Americold Logistics Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 22 January 2021, 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 Ms T Milliken 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 PR726356.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union, acting on behalf of its members, sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Americold Logistics Limited. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The central issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot, which sought to authorise industrial action, complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the ballot notice provided by the Union contained all the necessary information as required by the Act.

The Commission examined the content of the ballot notice provided by the Union to ascertain if it included the specific details mandated by section 310 of the Act. The notice was scrutinised to ensure it met the legislative criteria, including information about the proposed industrial action, the duration, and the implications for employees, among other details. The Union argued that the notice was comprehensive and complied with the statutory requirements. Conversely, Americold Logistics Limited contended that the notice was deficient and did not adequately inform employees of the consequences of the proposed action. The Commission found that the Union's ballot notice did not fully comply with the statutory requirements, as it failed to provide certain critical information to the employees.

As a result of this finding, the Commission disallowed the proposed ballot. This decision underscores the importance of precision in the drafting of ballot notices to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act, thereby protecting both the rights of employees and the obligations of employers.

United Workers' Union v Americold Logistics Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established