Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 2768

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd

(B2022/1538)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 14 OCTOBER 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd

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 Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd (Respondent).

The Respondent neither consented to nor objected 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 statutory declaration of Bradley Upton of the Applicant declared on 10 October 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 PR746854.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 against Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd, seeking a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees. The Respondent did not object to the application. The Vice President, Catanzariti, decided to determine the matter based on the documents submitted, without a hearing. The CFMMEU submitted a statutory declaration from Bradley Upton, stating that the union had been genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the Respondent, and the statutory notification period had been met. This application was made in the context of the union's ongoing negotiations with Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd.

The central legal issues that the Vice President had to decide upon were whether the union had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with the employer, whether the statutory notification period had been met, and if the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were satisfied. The Vice President had to assess the union's efforts in good faith bargaining and the compliance with the legislative requirements to grant the requested protected action ballot order.

In making the decision, the Vice President was satisfied that the union had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the Respondent and that the statutory notification period had been met. The Vice President also found that the requirements of section 443(1) of the Act were fulfilled. Consequently, the Vice President granted the application for a protected action ballot order. Additionally, a separate order was issued in PR746854.

The decision concludes with the granting of the application for a protected action ballot order, allowing the union to proceed with the ballot of its members in relation to the proposed agreement with Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd. The Vice President's decision was based on the satisfactory evidence of genuine bargaining efforts and compliance with the statutory requirements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established