United Workers' Union v Nestle Australia Ltd Summary

[2022] FWC 1853

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v

Nestle Australia Ltd

(B2022/686)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 15 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nestle Australia Ltd

This is an application by the United Workers’ Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Nestle Australia Ltd (Respondent).

On 15 July 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Leonidas Papanastasiou of the Applicant declared on 13 July 2022, 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 PR743814.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers’ Union applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Nestle Australia Ltd. The application was made under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Union argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the company and had met the notification time for the proposed agreement. The company did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

The key legal issue before the Commission was whether the Union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Act. In particular, the Commission had to determine if the Union had genuinely been trying to reach an agreement with the company, and if the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Union submitted a statutory declaration by Leonidas Papanastasiou, which outlined the bargaining process and the steps taken to reach an agreement.

The Vice President was satisfied that the Union had genuinely been trying to reach an agreement with the company and that the notification time for the proposed agreement had been met. The Vice President found that the Union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Act. An Order was issued in PR743814.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission found in favour of the Union and granted the protected action ballot order. The Commission found that the Union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The company did not oppose the application, and the matter was determined on the papers without a hearing.

United Workers' Union v Nestle Australia Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established