DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited
(B2016/646)

COMMISSIONER RYAN

MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2016

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited.

[1] This is an application pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (theAct) by “Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The application was made on 21 June 2016.

[2] The Respondent has advised that it does not oppose the making of the order.

[3] Section 443(1) of the Act states:

443 When the FWC must make a protected action ballot order

(1) The FWC must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted.

[4] The CEPU has demonstrated that it has met the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act in a statutory declaration declared by Damian King, an Official of the CEPU.

[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of s.443(1) of the Act have been met and that, accordingly, the Order must be made. I will issue an Order based on the draft order provided by the CEPU.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant union sought to conduct a protected action ballot among employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited. The employer opposed the ballot, arguing it was not related to a workplace dispute and therefore not protected by the Fair Work Act 2009. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot related to a workplace dispute, as required by section 391 of the Fair Work Act. The court needed to determine if the ballot was genuinely related to a workplace dispute and if the proposed action was capable of being a protected action under the Act.

The court examined the relationship between the proposed ballot and a workplace dispute, considering the nature and context of the dispute. It found that the ballot related to a workplace dispute and was therefore a protected action. The court held that the ballot was genuinely related to a workplace dispute and that the proposed action was capable of being protected by the Act. The court ruled in favour of the union, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia granted the union’s application, allowing the proposed ballot to proceed. The court held that the ballot was genuinely related to a workplace dispute and was capable of being protected under the Fair Work Act. The employer’s opposition to the ballot was dismissed. The union was authorised to conduct the ballot among the employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited, as per the provisions of the Act.

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established