DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd
(B2021/249)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 13 APRIL 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Pernod Ricard Winemakers 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 Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd (Respondent).

[2] Although the Respondent advised my chambers that it objected to the application, it was unable to advance a proper basis for doing so. The matters it raised are not matter which would permit me to refuse 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 Ms Anne Purdy 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 PR728581.

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 of employees of Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd. Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the Union from proceeding with the ballot. The Union's application for an injunction was dismissed by Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Union appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The Union argued that the Federal Circuit Court of Australia erred in finding that the Union had not satisfied the threshold requirements for an injunction to be granted. The Union argued that the court should have found that the Union had made out a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction based on the risk of damage to Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd if the ballot were to proceed. The Union also argued that the court should have found that the Union had satisfied the balance of convenience test. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that the Union had not satisfied the threshold requirements for an interlocutory injunction to be granted. The Full Court held that the Union had not made out a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction. The Full Court held that the Union had not satisfied the balance of convenience test.

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of Pernod Ricard Winemakers Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Full Court held that the Union had not satisfied the threshold requirements for an interlocutory injunction to be granted. The Full Court held that the Union had not made out a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction. The Full Court held that the Union had not satisfied the balance of convenience test.

United Workers' Union v Pernod Ricard Winemakers 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