Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union v Cascade Brewery Company Pty Ltd

Case [2025] FWC 1722


[2025] FWC 1722

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
v

Cascade Brewery Company Pty Ltd

(B2025/944)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON

ADELAIDE, 19 JUNE 2025

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cascade Brewery Company Pty Ltd

  1. This is an application by the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU 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 Cascade Brewery Company Pty Ltd (Cascade or Employer).

  1. On 18 June 2025, the Commission was advised that the Employer, in effect, did not object to the Application.

  1. In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

  1. On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Emma Barnes-Whelan, Lawyer, setting out the steps taken by the CFMEU in bargaining with the Employer and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with Cascade, 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 the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC).

  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 31 July 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 PR788357.

  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 is, in effect, 30 working days from the making of the Order and was the period sought in the application.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR788358>

Details
AGLC
Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union v Cascade Brewery Company Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1722
Case
[2025] FWC 1722
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) applied to the Fair Work Commission for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to certain employees of Cascade Brewery Company Pty Ltd (Cascade). The application was made on 18 June 2025, and the Commission was informed that Cascade did not object to the application. Consequently, the matter was determined by Deputy President Hampton on the papers without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue the Court had to address was whether the CFMEU had fulfilled the requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act to hold a ballot for protected action. The Court considered the declaration of Emma Barnes-Whelan, a lawyer, who detailed the steps taken by the CFMEU in bargaining with Cascade and confirmed the union's genuine efforts to reach an agreement. The Court was satisfied that all requirements for the ballot were met, including the notification time for the proposed agreement. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) was designated to conduct the ballot, with voting to close on 31 July 2025, which also sets the ballot period under section 448A(2) of the Act.

In summary, the Court granted the CFMEU's application for a protected action ballot order. The ballot was to be conducted by the AEC, and the voting period was set to close on 31 July 2025. Additionally, the matter was assigned to another Member of the Commission for a compulsory conciliation conference under section 448A, with directions likely to be issued to ensure meaningful negotiations.

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.