DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Workers' Union
v
Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd
(B2020/277)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 MAY 2020

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

[2] On 21 May 2020, 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 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 PR719553.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union, on behalf of its members, brought an application against Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd concerning a proposed protected action ballot. The dispute centred on whether the union had the right to conduct a ballot of certain employees in relation to protected action, which involved potential industrial action. The Fair Work Commission, the relevant tribunal, was tasked with determining the validity and legality of the proposed ballot.

The central legal issue was whether the union's proposed ballot was in accordance with the Fair Work Act 2009 and the associated regulations. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the union had appropriately notified Mondelez of the ballot, whether the ballot complied with the requirements of the Act, and if the proposed action was protected action as defined under the legislation. The court also needed to determine whether any procedural errors in the ballot process justified halting the ballot.

The Fair Work Commission found that while the union had generally complied with the requirements of the Act, there were procedural errors in the ballot process. Despite these errors, the Commission concluded that the procedural shortcomings did not significantly affect the outcome of the ballot. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the union, allowing the ballot to proceed. The Commission emphasised the importance of procedural correctness in future proceedings, but in this instance, the errors did not warrant halting the ballot. The decision underscores the necessity for unions to adhere strictly to the legislative requirements when organising industrial actions.

United Workers' Union v Mondelez 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