Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v AACI Installation Services Pty Ltd T/A AACI Installation Services

[2022] FWC 1802

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

AACI Installation Services Pty Ltd T/A AACI Installation Services

(B2022/666)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 12 JULY 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees AACI Installation Services Pty Ltd T/A AACI Installation Services.

This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of AACI Installation Services Pty Ltd T/A AACI Installation Services (the Respondent).

On 11 July 2022, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to 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 declaration of Mr Darren Connelly of the Applicant 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 PR743646.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v AACI Installation Services Pty Ltd T/A AACI Installation Services involves an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of AACI Installation Services Pty Ltd T/A AACI Installation Services (the Respondent). The matter was determined by Deputy President Clancy of the Fair Work Commission on 12 July 2022, in Melbourne. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the matter was decided on the papers without a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the requirements for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 had been met. Specifically, the Applicant needed to demonstrate that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, and that it had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. The Applicant provided a declaration from Mr Darren Connelly, outlining the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and asserting that it had been, and was, genuinely trying to reach agreement.

The court found that the Applicant had met the requirements for a protected action ballot order under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court accepted that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the Applicant had been genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent. As a result, the court granted the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order. The court also noted that an order had been separately issued in PR743646.

In summary, the Fair Work Commission found in favour of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union and granted the application for a protected action ballot order. The Respondent's lack of objection to the application, coupled with the Applicant's demonstration of genuine attempts to reach agreement, led to the court's decision to grant the order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established