United Workers' Union v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd T/A Cadbury, Claremont Summary

[2023] FWC 1195

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd T/A Cadbury, Claremont

(B2023/476)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 19 MAY 2023

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Mondelez

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 T/A Cadbury, Claremont (Respondent).

On 19 May 2023, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Ms Jill Batt 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.

An order has been separately issued in PR762073.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) was approached by the United Workers' Union (UWU) to seek a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Cadbury, Claremont. The UWU sought the order to potentially allow its members to take protected industrial action in pursuit of their bargaining objectives. The Respondent, Mondelez, did not object to the application, leading the Deputy President to determine the matter on the basis of the documentation provided. The primary focus of the case was to ascertain whether the UWU had met the necessary requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009 to conduct a ballot for protected action.

The legal issues before the FWC revolved around whether the UWU had complied with the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. Specifically, the Commission needed to determine if the UWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Mondelez, and if there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement. The UWU's declaration, which outlined their efforts in bargaining and their ongoing attempts to reach an agreement with Mondelez, was central to this determination. The FWC also needed to ensure that the conditions specified in section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were satisfied.

After reviewing the material submitted by the UWU, the Deputy President concluded that the union had indeed been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with Mondelez. The declaration provided by Ms Jill Batt of the UWU sufficiently demonstrated the union's efforts to negotiate and reach a new agreement. Additionally, the Deputy President found that there was a notification period in relation to the proposed agreement, and that all the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act had been met. Consequently, the FWC determined that the UWU was entitled to proceed with the protected action ballot. An order to this effect was issued, and a separate order was also made in PR762073.

The final orders of the FWC granted the UWU permission to conduct a protected action ballot among the employees of Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Cadbury, Claremont. This decision allowed the UWU to potentially proceed with industrial action as a means of achieving their bargaining objectives, provided that all actions taken complied with the provisions of the Fair Work Act. The determination underscores the importance of genuine bargaining efforts and adherence to statutory requirements in the context of industrial relations and protected actions.

United Workers' Union v Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd T/A Cadbury, Claremont

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established