Australian Workers' Union v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 3138


[2025] FWC 3138

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Australian Workers' Union
v

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd

(B2025/1595)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT

SYDNEY, 20 OCTOBER 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd – non-AEC ballot agent electronic voting

  1. This is an application by the Australian Workers' Union (AWU 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 Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd T/A Humes (Humes or Employer).

  1. On 17 October 2025, the Employer raised concerns about one of the proposed ballot questions which the AWU addressed by providing an amended form F34 on 19 October 2024.

  1. As the Employer has not raised any further concerns, I have decided to grant leave to amend the application and determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Max Braddy, Industrial Organiser, setting out the steps taken by the AWU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Humes, 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 Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd (Fair Vote). Fair Vote has been approved as an eligible protected action ballot agent under s.468A of the Act and consequently is authorised to conduct the ballot.

  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 3 November 2025.[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 PR792798.

  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 was the date sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR792799>

Details
AGLC
Australian Workers' Union v Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3138
Case
[2025] FWC 3138
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide on an application by the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The AWU sought an order for a protected action ballot for certain employees of Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd, trading as Humes. Holcim raised concerns about one of the proposed ballot questions, which the AWU addressed by providing an amended ballot form. The Commission decided to grant leave to amend the application and to determine the matter on the papers without a hearing.

The primary legal issues the Commission had to address were whether the AWU had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Holcim, whether the notification time for the proposed agreement was met, and whether all requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been fulfilled. The AWU provided a declaration by Max Braddy, Industrial Organiser, stating that they had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with Holcim and that a notification time existed for the proposed agreement. The Commission was satisfied with the AWU's efforts and the fulfilment of all statutory requirements.

The Commission determined that the ballot would be conducted by Fair Vote Services Pty Ltd, an approved protected action ballot agent. It set the closing date for voting as 3 November 2025. The Commission also assigned the matter to another member for a compulsory conciliation conference to ensure meaningful negotiations. The Deputy President issued an Order, and the matter will proceed to the next stage as directed.

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.