DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437 - Application for a protected action ballot order

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
v
Crown Melbourne Limited T/A Crown Casino
(B2019/722)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2019

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Crown Melbourne Limited T/A Crown Casino.

[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 Crown Melbourne Limited T/A Crown Casino (Respondent).

[2] On 2 September 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 Ms I Baxter 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 PR711959

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union contested Crown Melbourne Limited's T/A Crown Casino's objection to a proposed ballot of its employees for protected industrial action. The union intended to ballot employees to determine whether they supported strike action to address a pay dispute. Crown Melbourne objected to the ballot, arguing it would cause significant economic harm to the company. The Commission needed to decide whether the union's proposed ballot was lawful and whether any conditions or limitations should be imposed.

The Commission examined whether the union's proposed action met the requirements of the Fair Work Act, including whether the action was protected and whether the union had provided the necessary notice to the employer. The union argued that the proposed industrial action was protected because it was related to a dispute over employees' terms and conditions of employment. Crown Melbourne contended that the proposed action was not protected because it was not directed at the employer but at the public, as the casino would be closed during the action, causing significant economic harm. The Commission also considered whether the ballot could proceed without causing excessive hardship to the employer.

The Commission found that the proposed industrial action was protected and lawful, but it imposed conditions to mitigate the potential economic harm to the employer. The conditions included limiting the duration of the strike to one day and requiring the union to give the employer 48 hours' notice of the strike. The Commission also required the union to provide information about the number of employees participating in the strike and the impact on the employer. The Commission concluded that the union's proposed action was necessary to protect the employees' rights and interests and that the conditions imposed would minimise the potential harm to the employer.

The Fair Work Commission ordered that the union could proceed with the proposed ballot for protected industrial action, subject to the conditions outlined in the decision. The union was required to provide the employer with 48 hours' notice of the strike and to provide information about the number of employees participating in the strike and the impact on the employer. The Commission also ordered that the strike be limited to one day to minimise the potential harm to the employer. The decision provided a balanced approach to the competing interests of the union and the employer, recognising the importance of protecting employees' rights while also considering the potential economic impact on the employer.

Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Crown Melbourne Limited T/A Crown Casino

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established