DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
New Food Coatings Pty Ltd
(B2020/450)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 AUGUST 2020

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of New Food Coatings 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 New Food Coatings Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] On 20 August 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 M 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 PR721991.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union sought to organise a proposed protected action ballot among the employees of New Food Coatings Pty Ltd, a company involved in the manufacture of coatings for food products. The company opposed the ballot, arguing that it would disrupt its operations and infringe on its rights. The dispute came before the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining the validity and legality of the proposed ballot.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the ballot notice provided by the Union complied with the statutory requirements under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the Commission had to examine whether the notice was in the prescribed form, included all necessary particulars, and was delivered to the employer within the stipulated timeframe. Additionally, the Commission considered whether the proposed action was genuinely for the purpose of achieving a better outcome for the employees in a dispute of interest, as required by the Act.

In its decision, the Commission found that the ballot notice issued by the Union met all statutory requirements. The notice was in the correct form, contained all necessary details, and was delivered within the timeframe prescribed by law. The Commission also concluded that the proposed action was genuinely for the purpose of achieving a better outcome for the employees in a genuine dispute of interest. Therefore, the Commission ruled in favour of the Union and ordered New Food Coatings Pty Ltd to facilitate the ballot as requested.

The Fair Work Commission's decision reinforced the rights of unions to organise ballots for protected industrial action, provided that all legal requirements are met. The Commission's ruling ensures that employees have the necessary tools to advocate for their interests while maintaining a balance with the employer's operational rights.

United Workers' Union v New Food Coatings 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