s.236 - Majority support determination

The Trustee for the V & V Unit Trust and Vernon Walsh Pty Ltd Trading As V and V Walsh Meat Processors and Exporters - sheep processing floor - Respondent objections considered - application granted - determination made

• [1] On 30 October 2025, the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (the Applicant) applied to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) seeking a majority support determination under s.236(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act).

• [2] The Applicant is a bargaining representative of the group of workers employed by The Trustee for the V & V Unit Trust and Vernon Walsh Pty Ltd Trading As V and V Walsh Meat Processors and Exporters (the Respondent).

• [3] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.236 of the Act are satisfied. The Applicant is a bargaining representative for employees under the agreement. There is no agreement currently in place for those employees. The application specifies the employer and the employees who will be covered. The employees who will be covered are employees who work on the sheep processing floor.

• [4] I must consider the criteria provided under s.237 of the Act which provides the following:

"237 When the FWC must make a majority support determination

(1) The FWC must make a majority support determination in relation to a proposed single enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application for the determination has been made; and

(b) the FWC is satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (2) in relation to the agreement.

Matters of which the FWC must be satisfied before making a majority support determination

(i) who are employed by the employer or employers at a time determined by the FWC; and

(b) the employer, or employers, that will be covered by the agreement have not yet agreed to bargain, or initiated bargaining, for the agreement; and

(c) that the group of employees who will be covered by the agreement was fairly chosen; and

(d) it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the determination.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), the FWC may work out whether a majority of employees want to bargain using any method the FWC considers appropriate.

(3A) If the agreement will not cover all of the employees of the employer or employers covered by the agreement, the FWC must, in deciding for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) whether the group of employees who will be covered was fairly chosen, take into account whether the group is geographically, operationally or organisationally distinct.

(4) The determination comes into operation on the day on which it is made."

• [5] Directions were issued to the parties on 4 November 2025 requesting the Respondent provide a list of employees of the Respondent on the sheep processing floor. The union was asked to provide a copy of the unredacted petition.

• [6] The Respondent has not yet agreed to bargain.

• [7] The Respondent was given an opportunity to object to the application. I have considered the Respondent's objections below.

• [8] The Respondent provided the list of employees to Chambers on 11 November 2025.

• [9] I conducted a reconciliation of the petition results and the employee list and informed the parties of the results on 24 November 2025:

The Deputy President has conducted a reconciliation of the unredacted petition and the list of employees provided by the Respondent.

• There are 72 employees on the list of employees on the sheep processing floor provided by the Respondent.
• The names of 42 of the signatories on the petition match names from the Respondent's employee list
• This indicates that 58% of the employees on the list provided by the Respondent signed by the petition

(a) Whether a majority of employees want to bargain

• [10] Initially the Respondent objected to the Commission finding that it had not seen evidence of petitions or "independently verified" evidence of majority support. I informed the Respondent that the unredacted petition was confidential and would not be provided to the Respondent. The Respondent objected on the basis that labour hire workers may have been included in the petition. However, the Commission has only counted those petition signatories who are on the employee list provided by the Respondent themselves. I consider that these aspects of the objections have been resolved through the reconciliation by the Commission. The results of that reconciliation indicate that 58% of employees who would be covered by the Agreement want to bargain.

• [11] The Respondent argued that the Commission could not be satisfied that the employees who signed the petition understood its contents.

• [12] I asked the union to provide evidence of what steps were taken to account to provide translation of the petition for employees with English language difficulties. The AMIEU provided a statement from its organiser, Mr William Karati, which I have accepted. Mr Karati's evidence is that he was aware that there are many migrant workers in the establishment. Mr Karati spoke with the site delegate who informed him that the main language groups were Chinese, Filipino (Tagalog) and Indonesian. The site delegate provided Mr Karati with translations of the petition's text in these languages. The AMIEU then checked the translations provided using an online translation tool, DeepL.

• [13] The Respondent objects to the AMIEU's evidence in this regard. The Respondent stated:

Following consultation with employees on the sheep processing floor - including those of Chinese, Filipino and Indonesian backgrounds - it has been established unequivocally that no employee has ever seen the translated materials now relied upon

by the AMIEU. Employees have consistently stated that they do not understand what an enterprise agreement is, do not know what "negotiations" refers to, and received no explanation or meaningful information about the nature or purpose of the petition. Employees further reported that they were told to sign the document because it would result in a pay increase, and that this was basis upon which many of them signed. Several employees have also disclosed that they felt pressured to sign and did so without understanding the true purpose of what they were being asked to endorse.

Importantly, after being provided with correct and clear information about what an enterprise agreement is and what negotiations involve, a number of employees have asked if their signatures could be withdrawn from the petition. Their position has been emphatic: they would not have signed had they been properly informed at the time. This further demonstrates that any alleged majority support is illusory, founded not on informed consent but on misinformation, misunderstanding, and, in some cases, coercion.

• [14] My concerns with the Respondent's submissions are twofold. Firstly, they have essentially accused the AMIEU of providing false and misleading information to the Commission with absolutely no evidence to substantiate that allegation. As the Respondent is making the allegation, it is incumbent on them to support that allegation. Merely stating "it has been established unequivocally that no employee has ever seen the translated materials now relied upon by the AMIEU" with no supporting evidence is not sufficient.

• [15] Secondly, it appears from the Respondent's submission that the employer has sought out employees who signed the petition and questioned them about it. This is quite concerning. The Respondent was clearly told by the Commission that the petition was confidential. Another matter which perhaps the Respondent has not considered is that employees are not necessarily going to tell the truth when questioned by their employer about signing a majority support petition. There are reasons why these petitions are confidential. Further, the allegation that the AMIEU told employees that signing the petition would lead to a pay increase does not necessarily amount to coercion, as the Respondent alleges. A majority support determination does not necessarily lead to a pay increase but an enterprise agreement, when approved, must, by definition, lead to employees being better off overall.

• [16] I am satisfied that the AMIEU has taken steps to make translations available to employees. The Respondent's allegations in this regard are not supported by evidence. In contrast, the signed petition is objective evidence that a majority of employees want to bargain. It is a matter for the Commission to be satisfied that a majority of employees want to bargain. I do not consider it would be appropriate to individually question employees about whether they wish to bargain as that would completely avoid the purpose of a confidential petition.

(b) the employer, or employers, that will be covered by the agreement have not yet agreed to bargain, or initiated bargaining, for the agreement; and

• [17] I am satisfied that the employer has not agreed to initiate bargaining. The Respondent argues that there are existing avenues for employee representation and that the Meat Industry Award provides a "comprehensive safety net of wages and conditions". Additionally, the Respondent argues that commencing bargaining would have commercial impacts on the Respondent and may mean a reduction in production and employment risks.

(c) that the group of employees who will be covered by the agreement was fairly chosen; and

• [18] I am satisfied that the group of employees was fairly chosen. The AMIEU noted that it is common in the meat industry to have separate departments for boning and processing, and separate departments for different types of meat. For example, there is an enterprise covering employees of the Respondent in the beef boning room, the V&V Walsh (Beef Boning) and The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union Agreement 2024.

(d) it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the determination.

• [19] The Respondent objects to a majority support determination on the basis that there is an existing safety net through the Award, and mechanisms for employees to raise grievances. I accept that the Respondent may have existing processes which allow for a level of employee representation. However, on the other hand, the Commission has been provided with evidence that a majority of employees want to bargain. I do not consider that I should discount that evidence because the Respondent holds a different opinion. Further, as I mentioned above, there is already an enterprise agreement for other employees in the workplace, in the beef boning room which somewhat undercuts the Respondent's submissions against having an enterprise agreement.

• [20] The Respondent also objects on the basis that bargaining is a commercial cost to the business and that employees may have inflated expectations of what bargaining can achieve. In this regard, I note the comments of the Full Bench in Donnybrook Holdings Pty Ltd T/A TES Electrical v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (128V) [2021] FWCFB 1825:

An application for a majority support determination - that is, a determination that a majority of employees who will be covered by a proposed single-enterprise agreement want to bargain with their employer - may be made under s 236 of the FW Act by a bargaining representative. The significance of the making of such a determination for an employer includes that:

• it constitutes a "notification time" under s 173(2)(b) of the FW Act and thus obliges the employer to issue to relevant employees a notice of employee representational rights within 14 days (s 173(1) and (3));

• it satisfies one of the conditions for the making of a bargaining order applicable to an employer under s 230(s 230(2)(b)); and

• it allows (by virtue of constituting a notification time) an application for a protected action ballot order to be made (s 437(2A)

• [21] Granting a majority support determination does not automatically lead to an agreement being made. Indeed, the agreement is made by the employer requesting the employees to vote on it. Secondly, the employer is entitled to communicate with its employees about the commercial realities of the business. If the Respondent feels that the employees have unrealistic expectations, this is something that can be addressed in bargaining.

• [22] I do not consider that it is unreasonable to make the majority support determination.

• [23] I am satisfied that the group of employees is organisationally distinct. There is a separate enterprise agreement for employees in the beef boning. I am satisfied that the employees in the sheep processing floor are organisationally distinct.

• [24] As the above requirements have been met, I am satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make a determination.

The Determination is issued separately in PR794940.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer