DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidfood Adelaide
(B2019/1403)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 20 DECEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidfood Adelaide.

[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 Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidfood Adelaide (Respondent).

[2] On 20 December 2019, 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 statutory declaration of Ms J Holz 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 PR715475.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Workers' Union versus Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidfood Adelaide, the United Workers' Union sought to organise a ballot of employees for proposed protected action. The dispute arose in the context of potential industrial action, with the union aiming to gather employee support through a ballot process. The matter was brought before the Fair Work Commission, which had to determine whether the union's ballot could proceed. The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the proposed ballot met the requirements set out in the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to assess whether the union had complied with the procedural prerequisites for conducting a protected action ballot, including providing sufficient notice and information to the employees.

The Fair Work Commission considered the union's application and the employer's opposition to the ballot. The Commission examined whether the union had followed the correct procedures, including the timing and content of the notices provided to employees. The employer argued that the union's ballot did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly regarding the timing and clarity of the notices. The union contended that the notices were adequate and that the employer was attempting to delay the process. After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, the Commission found that the union's ballot did not comply with the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act. The Commission determined that the notices provided to the employees were insufficient and did not meet the statutory standards.

As a result, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the union's application to conduct the proposed ballot. The Commission held that the union had failed to provide the required information and notice to the employees, thereby not meeting the legislative criteria for a protected action ballot. Consequently, the employees could not participate in the proposed ballot, and the union's attempt to organise the action was unsuccessful. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when conducting a protected action ballot. The Commission's ruling serves as a reminder of the procedural obligations that unions and employers must fulfill to ensure the validity of any proposed industrial action.

United Workers' Union v Cater Plus Pty Ltd T/A Bidfood Adelaide

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established