| [2023] FWC 951 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Curragh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd
(B2023/358)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 21 APRIL 2023 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Curragh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd
This is an application by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (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 Curragh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd (Respondent).
On 19 April 2023, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.
In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.
On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Craig Thomas of the Applicant declared on 17 April 2023, 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.
An Order has been separately issued in PR761280.
VICE PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR761281>
- AGLC
- Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Curragh Queensland Mining Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 951
- Case
- [2023] FWC 951
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the union had met the requirements of the Act in relation to the proposed agreement, including the notification time. The union had provided a statutory declaration from Craig Thomas, who attested to the union's efforts in bargaining with the company and the steps taken to reach an agreement. The court also had to consider whether the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act had been met. The court found that the union had met these requirements and granted the order for a protected action ballot.
The court's reasoning was based on the material presented, including the statutory declaration from the union. The Vice President found that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the company and had met the notification time requirement. The court also found that the union had met the requirements in section 443(1) of the Act. The court concluded that the union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot and granted the order. An Order was separately issued in PR761280.
In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission granted the union's application for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of the mining company. The court found that the union had met the requirements of the Act and had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the company. The court's decision was based on the material presented, including the statutory declaration from the union. The court granted the order and an Order was separately issued in PR761280.
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.