DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
General Mills Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/241)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 APRIL 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of General Mills Australia Pty Ltd.

[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 the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Respondent).

[2] On 9 April 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 Mr Martin 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 PR728478.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Workers' Union v General Mills Australia Pty Ltd involved the United Workers' Union, representing employees of General Mills Australia Pty Ltd, and the company itself. The dispute arose when the union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees to gauge support for potential industrial action. General Mills challenged the ballot, leading to the Federal Court's consideration of the legal framework governing such actions.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court had to determine whether the union's proposed ballot complied with the legislative requirements and whether the company's objections were valid. This included assessing whether the ballot notice provided sufficient information to employees, whether the ballot was reasonably related to an industrial dispute, and whether the company's concerns about potential harm to its business operations justified intervention.

In its decision, the court examined the specific wording of the ballot notice and the context in which it was issued. The court found that the notice provided adequate information for employees to make an informed decision, and it was reasonably related to an ongoing industrial dispute. The union's intent to inform employees about potential industrial action and the company's concerns about business disruption were balanced against the employees' right to organise and take protected action. Ultimately, the court concluded that the union's ballot complied with the legislative requirements, and the company's objections were not sufficient to warrant prohibiting the ballot.

The court's final orders allowed the union to proceed with the proposed ballot, subject to the union providing the company with a copy of the ballot notice in advance. The union was also directed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the ballot did not cause unnecessary harm to the company's operations.

United Workers' Union v General Mills Australia Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established