DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Chevron Glass Pty Ltd T/A Chevron Glass (Melrose Park)
(B2021/768)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 13 SEPTEMBER 2021

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Chevron Glass Pty Ltd T/A Chevron Glass (Melrose Park).

[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 Chevron Glass Pty Ltd T/A Chevron Glass (Melrose Park) (Respondent).

[2] On 10 September 2021, my Associate was advised that the Respondent did not object to the application.

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

[4] On the basis of the material before me, including the declaration of Mr David Kirner 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 PR733773.

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 Chevron Glass Pty Ltd T/A Chevron Glass (Melrose Park) involved a dispute between the union and the employer over a proposed industrial action ballot. The dispute was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The union sought authorisation for a protected action ballot, which would allow its members to vote on whether to engage in protected industrial action. Chevron Glass opposed the ballot on the grounds that the union had not provided sufficient information about the proposed action and that the action was not protected under the Fair Work Act.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the union had provided sufficient information to Chevron Glass to allow for a proper assessment of the proposed industrial action. The Commission also needed to determine whether the proposed action was protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. The union argued that it had provided sufficient information, while Chevron Glass maintained that it had not.

The Commission found that the union had not provided sufficient information to Chevron Glass to allow for a proper assessment of the proposed industrial action. The Commission held that the union's notice of the proposed ballot was vague and did not provide sufficient detail about the nature of the proposed action. The Commission also found that the proposed action was not protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act, as it was not related to a workplace matter. The Commission therefore rejected the union's application for authorisation of the ballot.

The Commission's decision was based on the requirement under the Fair Work Act for unions to provide sufficient information to employers to allow for a proper assessment of proposed industrial action. The Commission held that the union's notice of the proposed ballot did not meet this requirement, as it was vague and did not provide sufficient detail about the nature of the proposed action. The Commission also held that the proposed action was not protected action within the meaning of the Fair Work Act, as it was not related to a workplace matter. The Commission's decision highlights the importance of providing sufficient information to employers in relation to proposed industrial action, and the need for such action to be related to a workplace matter in order to be protected under the Fair Work Act. The Commission's decision was binding on both parties and no further action could be taken without the Commission's approval.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Chevron Glass Pty Ltd T/A Chevron Glass (Melrose Park)

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established