DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd
(B2016/259)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 9 FEBRUARY 2016

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

[1] This is an application by Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] On 8 February 2016 my associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

[3] In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matters on the papers without holding a hearing.

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Mr P Scudds of the Applicant setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent Company and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent Company, I am satisfied that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

[5] An order has been separately issued in PR576905.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, acting on behalf of its members employed by Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd, and the company itself. The dispute centred around a proposed ballot of employees to determine their support for protected industrial action. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, the body responsible for resolving workplace disputes in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the commission was whether the union's proposed ballot was lawful and whether the company's objections to the ballot were justified. The union argued that the ballot was necessary to gauge employee support for potential industrial action in response to ongoing industrial disputes. The company, on the other hand, contended that the ballot was unnecessary and could disrupt business operations, potentially leading to financial loss. The commission needed to determine the balance between the union's right to organise and the company's right to operate its business without undue interference.

In reaching its decision, the commission considered the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 and previous case law on the subject of protected industrial action. The commission found that the union had acted within its rights by proposing the ballot, as it was a reasonable step to ascertain the level of employee support for potential action. The commission also considered the company's concerns about the potential disruption to its operations but concluded that these concerns did not outweigh the union's right to organise and consult with its members. The commission ordered that the proposed ballot could proceed, subject to certain conditions to minimise the potential for disruption.

The final orders of the commission allowed the union to proceed with the proposed ballot of its members employed by Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd. The commission imposed conditions on the ballot to ensure that it was conducted in a manner that minimised disruption to the company's operations. The union was required to provide the company with sufficient notice of the ballot and to ensure that the ballot was conducted during normal working hours. The company, in turn, was required to allow its employees to participate in the ballot without undue interference or coercion.

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