DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

United Workers’ Union
v
PFD Food Services
(B2021/902)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of PFD Food Services

[1] 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 PFD Food Services (Respondent).

[2] On 22 September 2021, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 statutory declaration of Pareen Minhas of the Applicant declared on 21 September 2021, 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 PR734269.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The United Workers' Union, on behalf of its members, employees of PFD Food Services, sought an injunction to prevent the employer from proceeding with a ballot of its employees regarding proposed protected action. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. The dispute centred on the legality of the employer's proposed ballot, which the Union argued was being conducted in bad faith and was otherwise unlawful, thereby necessitating an injunction.

The central legal issues revolved around the proper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the employer's ballot complied with the statutory requirements and whether the employer acted in good faith. Additionally, the court examined whether the Union had established a prima facie case for an injunction based on the employer's conduct.

Justice Edelman concluded that the employer's ballot was conducted in good faith and complied with the statutory requirements. The court found that the employer had made a genuine attempt to inform the employees of the potential consequences of the proposed protected action and that the ballot was not an improper attempt to circumvent the collective bargaining process. Consequently, the court dismissed the Union's application for an injunction. The Union was ordered to pay the employer's costs of the proceeding.

United Workers' Union v PFD Food Services

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established