DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Corinthian Industries (Australia) Pty Limited
(B2019/28)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 14 JANUARY 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Corinthian Industries (Australia) Pty Limited.

[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 Corinthian Industries (Australia) Pty Limited (Respondent).

[2] On 14 January 2019, 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 P Duncan 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 PR703810.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Corinthian Industries (Australia) Pty Limited sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union from holding a ballot of its members in relation to proposed industrial action. The Federal Court heard the application on an ex parte basis and dismissed the application. Corinthian Industries was a manufacturer of marine and industrial components. The Union was the registered union for Corinthian employees. Corinthian had entered into an enterprise agreement with the Union. Corinthian terminated the enterprise agreement, and the Union notified Corinthian of its intention to hold a ballot of its members to determine whether protected action should be taken. Corinthian made an ex parte application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Union from holding the ballot. Corinthian claimed that the ballot would result in damage to its business and reputation. Corinthian also claimed that the ballot would be unlawful as it would not be a genuine ballot within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. Corinthian did not provide evidence to support its claims. The court held that Corinthian had not made out a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction. Corinthian had failed to provide evidence to support its claims of damage to its business and reputation, and the court held that Corinthian's concerns were speculative. The court also held that Corinthian had not made out a case that the ballot would not be genuine. Corinthian had failed to provide evidence to support its claims, and the court held that Corinthian's concerns were speculative. The court dismissed Corinthian's application for an interlocutory injunction. The court ordered Corinthian to pay the Union's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Corinthian Industries (Australia) Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established