Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Colan Products Pty Limited

[2022] FWC 1421

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Colan Products Pty Limited

(B2022/521)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 6 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Colan Products Pty Limited

This is an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Colan Products Pty Limited (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented to nor opposed 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 statutory declaration of Michael Aird of the Applicant declared on 2 June 2022, 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 PR742354.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission was asked to decide on an application by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union for a protected action ballot order in relation to employees of Colan Products Pty Limited. The Respondent neither consented to nor opposed the application. The Union sought to hold a ballot to allow its members to vote on whether to take protected action. The Commission was required to determine whether the Union had complied with the notification requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission considered the evidence presented, including a statutory declaration by Michael Aird of the Union, setting out the bargaining process and the Union's efforts to reach an agreement with the Respondent. The Union argued that it had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that there was a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement. The Commission was satisfied that the Union had met the requirements for a protected action ballot order.

The Fair Work Commission determined that the Union had complied with the notification requirements under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission issued an order allowing the Union to hold a ballot to allow its members to vote on whether to take protected action. The Respondent did not oppose the application, and therefore, the Commission did not hold a hearing. The decision was made on the basis of the material before the Commission.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established