DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
GrainCorp Foods Australia Pty Ltd
(B2021/328)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 MAY 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of GrainCorp Foods 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 GrainCorp Foods Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 13 May 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 Christopher Bechaz 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 PR729838.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of United Workers' Union versus GrainCorp Foods Australia Pty Ltd was heard in a court where the union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among GrainCorp's employees. The union aimed to initiate industrial action to address certain grievances, while GrainCorp contested the union's right to conduct such a ballot. The central issue was whether the union had complied with the necessary legal requirements to hold a lawful protected action ballot.

The legal issues before the court included whether the union had accurately identified the relevant employees eligible to vote in the ballot, whether the ballot notice provided to employees met the statutory requirements, and whether the union had taken appropriate steps to ensure the ballot's integrity and fairness. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether GrainCorp had valid grounds to challenge the union's ballot process.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the union had accurately identified the relevant employees and that the ballot notice was adequate. However, the court identified procedural flaws in how the ballot was conducted, particularly regarding the transparency and accessibility of the voting process. Based on these findings, the court ruled that the union's ballot did not comply with the necessary legal standards. Consequently, the court determined that the proposed ballot was invalid.

The court's final orders were that the union's proposed protected action ballot was not lawful, and the union was restrained from proceeding with the ballot. The court also ordered that GrainCorp and the union engage in further discussions to address the employees' grievances in a manner that complied with the relevant industrial laws.

United Workers' Union v GrainCorp Foods 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