DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Goodman Fielder Pty Limited
(B2021/178)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 17 MARCH 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Goodman Fielder Pty 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 Goodman Fielder Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 17 March 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 PR727832.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of United Workers' Union v Goodman Fielder Pty Limited, the Federal Court was called upon to consider the validity of a proposed protected action ballot organised by the United Workers' Union for employees of Goodman Fielder Pty Limited. The dispute centred around whether the union had complied with the procedural requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009 when seeking authorisation for the ballot, which was intended to enable the employees to take protected industrial action. The primary focus of the litigation was the interpretation and application of sections of the Fair Work Act, specifically concerning the process for conducting a protected action ballot.

The court was tasked with determining whether the union had followed the correct procedures in issuing the protected action ballot notice and whether there was any procedural unfairness that could render the ballot invalid. Key issues included the adequacy of the ballot notice provided by the union, whether the union had correctly identified the bargaining area, and if the notice had been given to employees in accordance with the statutory requirements. The union argued that the ballot was conducted lawfully and within the prescribed timeframes, while Goodman Fielder Pty Limited contended that the ballot was flawed and did not meet the legal standards set forth in the Fair Work Act.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the compliance of the union's actions with the statutory requirements. It found that the union had indeed followed the necessary procedures in issuing the ballot notice, and there was no procedural unfairness that would invalidate the ballot. The court highlighted that the notice had been sufficiently detailed and that the employees had been adequately informed of the potential outcomes of the ballot. As a result, the court ruled in favour of the union, confirming the validity of the proposed protected action ballot. The final orders of the court upheld the legality of the ballot process, allowing the employees to proceed with their planned industrial action subject to the outcomes of the ballot.

United Workers' Union v Goodman Fielder Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established