United Workers' Union v Nestle Australia Ltd

Case [2024] FWC 1969


[2024] FWC 1969

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

United Workers' Union
v

Nestle Australia Ltd

(B2024/945)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 25 JULY 2024

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Nestle Australia Ltd

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

  1. On 25 July 2024, the Commission was advised that the Employer did not object to the Application.

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

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Tegan Milliken, Senior Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the UWU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Nestle, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that all of  the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

  1. The ballot is to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission.

  1. For the purposes of s.443(3)(c) of the Act, the Commission has determined that the date by which voting is to close is 6 September 2024.[1] This also establishes the ballot period for the purpose of s.448A(2) of the Act.

  1. An Order has been separately issued in PR777521.

  1. This matter will be assigned to another Member of the Commission to conduct the s.448A compulsory conciliation conference. That Member will issue an Order requiring the attendance of all bargaining representatives in the proposed enterprise agreement at the conference. It is likely that Directions will also be issued to ensure that the parties attend the conference ready to conduct meaningful negotiations.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT


[1] This is, in effect, 30 working days from the making of the Order and was the period sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

< PR777522>

Details
AGLC
United Workers' Union v Nestle Australia Ltd [2024] FWC 1969
Case
[2024] FWC 1969
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission, presided over by Deputy President Hampton, dealt with an application by the United Workers' Union for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Nestle Australia Ltd. The union sought the order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009, indicating a proposed industrial action due to ongoing negotiations over a new enterprise agreement. Nestle did not object to the application, allowing the matter to proceed without a formal hearing. Instead, the decision was made based on the documents submitted, including a declaration from Tegan Milliken, Senior Organiser of the UWU, detailing the union's negotiation efforts with Nestle.

The legal issues the court addressed revolved around the requirements set out in section 443(1) of the Act, which must be fulfilled for a protected action ballot to be authorised. The court needed to determine whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Nestle and whether a notification period for the proposed agreement existed. The union's declaration and the lack of objection from Nestle facilitated the court's conclusion that all conditions for the ballot had been met. Furthermore, the court set the closing date for the ballot as 6 September 2024, which also marks the ballot period under section 448A(2) of the Act.

The decision was reached on the basis that the union had genuinely attempted to negotiate and that all statutory requirements were satisfied. The Fair Work Commission authorised the ballot and appointed the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct it. Additionally, the court determined that a compulsory conciliation conference would follow, overseen by another member of the Commission, to ensure meaningful negotiations. This decision ensures that the union can proceed with the ballot while also providing a structured pathway for further negotiations between the union and Nestle.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.