United Workers' Union v Coca-Cola Amatil Limited T/A Coca-Cola Europacific Partners

[2021] FWC 4280

[2021] FWC 4280

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Coca-Cola Amatil Limited T/A Coca-Cola Europacific Partners
(B2021/541)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 21 JULY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Coca-Cola Amatil Limited T/A Coca-Cola Europacific Partners.

[1] This is an application lodged on 14 July 2021 by the United Workers’ Union (the Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Coca-Cola Amatil Limited T/A Coca-Cola Europacific Partners (the Respondent).

[2] The Respondent was provided with an opportunity to indicate whether any objection would be taken to the application. On 16 July 2021 the Respondent advised it did not oppose the application but does oppose three of the proposed questions.

[3] A hearing of the matter was held on 19 July 2021 and the parties subsequently filed further submissions on 20 July 2021.

[4] The Applicant sought that a person other than the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) be the ballot agent for the protected action ballot. The person proposed in the application as the protected action ballot agent is Democratic Outcomes Pty Ltd T/A CiVS (CiVS). Mr Michael, the Managing Director of CiVs has provided a statutory declaration setting out that he would carry out the functions of the protected ballot agent for CiVS, and that he has relevant experience in conducting protected action ballots.

[5] I am satisfied on the materials before me that CiVS is a fit and proper person to conduct the ballot. I am also satisfied that Mr Michael and CiVS are capable of ensuring the secrecy and security of the votes and of conducting the ballot expeditiously. CiVs has agreed to be the protected action ballot agent and Mr Michael and CiVS are bound to comply with the Privacy Act 1998 with respect to the handling of the information relating to the protected action ballot.

[6] CiVS is to be the ballot agent for the purposes of this matter.

[7] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Ms Louise Dillon of the Applicant lodged 14 July 2021, 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 Act have been met.

[8] I am also satisfied that the Applicant has given notice in accordance with section 440 of the Act.

[9] Turning to consider the wording of the contested questions.

[10] Considering the submissions of the parties and the statements of Mr Gus Douglas (Mr Douglas) the Respondent’s Western Australia Operations Manager my decision is as follows.

[11] With respect to question 2, and noting the amended wording proposed by the applicant, I am satisfied that the employees of the Respondent will be able to understand the question and provide a considered response. Question 2 will be included with the amended wording.

[12] With respect to question 6, I again note the amended wording proposed by the Applicant at paragraph 20 of their submissions in response. The statement of Mr Douglas is that the Respondent’s safe working procedures do not stipulate how many people are required to operate any machine. I agree with the Respondent’s submission that consequently the employees will not be able to determine what is the minimum employee manning on a production line and so the question is ambiguous. Question 6, as a result, will be deleted.

[13] With respect to question 7, the statement of Mr Douglas is that the Respondent’s procedures do not mention how many tradespersons should be on any shift. The question therefore wrongly implies that two Mechanical Maintenance Technicians and two Electrical Maintenance Technicians should be on shift. It is not appropriate then that the question be asked of employees when it includes a false premise. Question 7, as a result, will be deleted

[14] An Order [PR731863] to that effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.

Appearances:

J. Lee on behalf of the Applicant.
E. Cregan on behalf of the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2021.
Perth (by telephone):
July 19.

Final written submissions:

Applicant, 20 July 2021.
Respondent, 20 July 2021.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR731862>