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

[2022] FWC 1766

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v

Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd

(B2022/629)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 7 JULY 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).

On 5 July 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose 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 30 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 PR743551.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning certain employees of Cranecrew Logistics Pty Ltd (CLL). CLL did not oppose the application, leading the FWC to decide the matter on the papers without a hearing. The CFMMEU sought the ballot order to enable its members to take protected action, presumably in a bid to resolve a dispute with CLL. The case concerned the procedural aspects of the protected action ballot, focusing on whether the requirements for such a ballot under the Fair Work Act were satisfied.

The primary legal issue before the FWC was whether the CFMMEU had satisfied the statutory requirements to hold a protected action ballot. Specifically, the FWC had to determine if the CFMMEU had genuinely tried to reach an agreement with CLL and if the notification time for the proposed agreement was met. Under section 443(1) of the Act, these are critical prerequisites for the FWC to grant a ballot order. The CFMMEU's statutory declaration, along with other material submitted, was central to resolving this issue.

In assessing the material presented, Vice President Catanzariti found that the CFMMEU had indeed taken the necessary steps to bargain with CLL and had been genuinely attempting to reach an agreement. Additionally, the notification time for the proposed agreement was deemed to be met. Based on these findings, the Vice President was satisfied that the CFMMEU had met the requirements under section 443(1) of the Act. Consequently, the FWC decided to grant the ballot order, allowing the CFMMEU to proceed with the proposed protected action.

The FWC issued an order in PR743551, confirming the grant of the ballot order to the CFMMEU. This decision ensures that the union can proceed with its proposed protected action, subject to the procedural safeguards outlined in the Fair Work Act.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established