Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Asaleo Personal Care Pty Ltd Summary

[2023] FWC 763

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Asaleo Personal Care Pty Ltd

(B2023/291)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 30 MARCH 2023

Proposed protection action ballot of employees of Asaleo Personal Care Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, 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 Asaleo Personal Care Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 30 March 2023, 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 Ms Campbell-Burns 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 PR760721.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission involved an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Applicant) for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Asaleo Personal Care Pty Ltd (the Respondent). The Applicant sought to hold a ballot to authorise protected industrial action, such as a strike, in an attempt to resolve a dispute over the terms and conditions of employment.

The primary legal issue for the Commission to decide was whether the Applicant had met the statutory requirements to hold a protected action ballot under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009. This required the Commission to consider whether there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement, whether the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent, and whether the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act had been met.

The Commission found that, based on the material before it, including a declaration from Ms Campbell-Burns of the Applicant setting out the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent, the requirements for a protected action ballot had been met. The Respondent did not object to the application, and the Commission was satisfied that there was a notification time and that the Applicant had genuinely tried to reach agreement with the Respondent. Consequently, the Commission determined to grant the Applicant's application for a protected action ballot order. An order was separately issued in PR760721.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Asaleo Personal Care Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established