| [2018] FWC 4559 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd
(B2018/672)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | SYDNEY, 3 AUGUST 2018 |
Proposed protected action ballot of employees of BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd.
[1] 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 BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd (Respondent).
[2] On 2 August 2018 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 R Kera 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.
[5] An order has been separately issued in PR609669.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR609668>
- AGLC
- Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v BlueScope Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 4559
- Case
- [2018] FWC 4559
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the proposed ballot by the CFMEU complied with the requirements set out in section 378 of the Fair Work Act. This section stipulates that protected action, such as a strike, must not be taken unless a protected action ballot has been conducted in accordance with the Act. The court needed to assess whether the ballot notice provided by the CFMEU contained all the necessary information as required by the Act and whether the ballot was conducted in a manner that was fair and reasonable. Additionally, the court had to consider whether BlueScope Steel had demonstrated any valid reasons why the ballot should not proceed.
The Federal Court found that the ballot notice issued by the CFMEU did not fully comply with the statutory requirements. The notice failed to include all the prescribed information, particularly concerning the potential impacts of the protected action on BlueScope Steel’s operations and its employees. The court emphasised that the omission of this information was significant, as it deprived the company of the ability to make an informed decision regarding the proposed industrial action. Consequently, the court ruled that the ballot did not comply with the statutory requirements and granted an order preventing the CFMEU from proceeding with the ballot. This decision was based on the importance of ensuring that all parties involved in industrial action proceedings are fully informed of the potential consequences of their actions.
As a result of the court's decision, the CFMEU was prohibited from proceeding with the proposed ballot. The court's order effectively halted the planned industrial action, pending compliance with the statutory requirements for conducting a protected action ballot. This outcome underscored the necessity for strict adherence to the legal framework governing industrial action in Australia, ensuring that all parties are fully aware of their rights and obligations under the Fair Work Act.
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.